Sitting of 28 July 1879

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART; Class I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS; Class II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS; Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
Resolutions [July 25] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland) [Salaries, &c]; National School Teachers (Ireland) [Repayment of Advances].
Ordered—First Reading—Boundary Commission (England and Wales)* [263].
Second Reading—Municipal Elections (Ireland) * [256]; Shipping Casualties Investigations fee-hearing [262]; Mungret Agricultural School, &c. * [213]; Registry Courts (Ireland) (Practice) * [259].
Committee—Report—East India Loan (Consolidated Fund) [201]; Commissioners of Woods (Thames Piers) * [249].
Third Reading—Knightsbridge and other Crown Lands * [258], and passed.
Withdrawn—Contagious Diseases Acts Repeal * [34]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday * [20]; Noxious Gases * [123].

QUESTIONS.

  RUSSIA—TREATMENT OF RUSSIAN CONVICTS—DEPORTATION TO SAGHALIEN.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. J. COWENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Government have received any information as to the manner in which Russian subjects, on mere suspicion of political offences, are being driven by thousands
  1404
  into slaveryin Siberia; if they have been informed that 700 persons, mostly men and women of education, have been packed in the hold of a small ship bound for Saghalien, without light or sufficient food or air, that 250 of them died on board, and 150 were landed in a dying state; further, whether it is true that large bodies of Cossacks are being forcibly ejected from their houses and homes, and compelled to settle in Colonies from the mouth of the Usuri river to Vladevostock, for the purpose of establishing a chain of military posts against the Chinese; and, whether, since remonstrances were addressed by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Naples against the treatment of Poerio and his colleagues in 1855, and to Russia, against her treatment of the Poles after the insurrection in 1861, to Turkey in 1876 against the action of Chefket Pasha and others in Bulgaria, these cases do not furnish precedents for remonstrating with Russia against such treatment of alleged political offenders?
  MR. BOURKE: In regard to the first Question of the hon. Member, I have to state that various accounts have reached the Foreign Office as to numerous arrests for political offences which have taken place within the last two months in various parts of Russia. Deportation has followed upon these arrests. I am not in a position officially to say what is the destination of the persons so arrested. With regard to the second Question, respecting the particular ship mentioned by the hon. Member, I have to state that accounts have reached the Foreign Office that this vessel was specially fitted for carrying prisoners from the Black Sea to Saghalien, and we are informed that the arrangements for carrying the prisoners were as humane as possible consistently with a proper guard being kept upon the prisoners on board the vessel. It has also been alleged that there were no political prisoners on board of her, but that her cargo consisted of between 600 and 700 convicted prisoners. The vessel passed through the Canal into the Red Sea some weeks ago. As to the next Question, relating to the Cossacks, I am not in a position either to affirm or to deny the facts. Then the hon. Member asks whether the cases he mentions do not furnish a precedent for a remonstrance

  1405
  on the part of Her Majesty's Government? All I can say in answer to that is that it is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to interfere in cases of this kind unless they have good reason to suppose that the remonstrances which they make will be attended with beneficial or practical results.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly say whether it is true that, on the arrival of the ship, 250 of these people were found to be dead and 150 were in a dying state?
  MR. BOURKE: We have not received any information of that kind; and if the hon. Member will look at the Question, he will see it was impossible for us to receive any information of that sort consistent with the facts, for the vessel only passed through the Red Sea three or four weeks ago, and, therefore, we have not heard of her landing any prisoners, or, indeed, of her touching at any place after she left Suez. We have heard of her in the Red Sea, where she was at anchor; but we have not heard that she touched at any place.

  NAVY—MARINE OFFICERS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has had a medical survey on the five Marine officers who were unable to go with the battalion to South Africa, and if the result has been to retire only three of them, and to retain two on the active list; whether, as regards foreign service such as the South African, these two are suffering only from temporary disability, or whether they are for the future fit only for home service; and, if it be the fact that one of these two has been allowed to gain a lieutenant colonelcy through the compulsory retirement of another of the five surveyed?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: It is true that a medical survey was held on five officers reported unfit. The Medical Board reported three as unfit for general service, and two as fit. As regards one of the two officers, there can be no doubt his disability was not of a character to render him unfit for general service, but was of a temporary character only; and as regards the second officer the discrepancy between the report of the medical officer who declared him to be unfit and the Medical Board who de-
    1406
    clared him to be fit will be matter for further investigation and consideration. Pending the decision of the Board of Admiralty, the promotion of the second officer to the lieutenant colonelcy will not be made.

  NOXIOUS GASES BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. LOWTHIAN BELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, looking at the period of the year, it is really the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Noxious Gases Bill?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, that owing to the opposition with which the Bill was threatened, and the advanced period of the Session, it was his intention to withdraw it.

  DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE MULCAIRE DRAINAGE SCHEME.

    QUESTION.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Lords of the Treasury have considered the Memorial presented by Tenants in the county of Limerick of Lands affected by the failure of the Mulcaire Drainage Scheme; and, whether their Lordships are prepared, to afford the Memorialists any relief?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: The Memorial was only received at the Treasury on the 24th instant. It has been referred to the Board of Works in Ireland, and until their Report has been received it is impossible for the Lords of the Treasury to form any opinion upon the matter submitted to them in the Memorial.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES ACTS—BORROWING POWERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. ISAACasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the statement is correct that Building Societies established under the 6th and 7th Will. 4, c. 32, and not since incorporated under "The Building Societies Act, 1874," have the powers of borrowing money set forth in the Act of 1874?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): The 15th section of the Building Societies Act, 1874, does not confer such borrowing powers on those Societies, unless they have been incorporated under the Act of 1874. In an answer I recently gave to a similar

  1407
  Question, I ought to have pointed out more distinctly than I did that the Building Societies to which the 15th section of the Act of 1874 applies are Societies which have obtained certificates of incorporation under that Act, as provided by Section 2 of the Building Societies Act Amendment Act, 1875.

  EXHIBITION COMMISSIONERS OF 1851 AND THE THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.—QUESTION.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether ho is aware that the whole of the £50,000 advanced by the debenture holders to the Royal Horticultural Society, in addition to £25,000 from the Society's own funds, was spent upon buildings and other permanent works on the property rented by the Society from the Royal Commissioners of the 1851 Exhibition; and, whether this money was spent under the direct supervision of an "Expenses Committee," upon which the Royal Commissioners retained the power to appoint, and did actually appoint, a majority of the members, thereby keeping complete control over the expenditure of the money advanced by the debenture holders?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The money which was advanced by the debenture holders to the Royal Horticultural Society was, I understand, expended in the erection of conservatories, laying out terraces, and other works suitable for public gardens, which were of no advantage to the Commissioners in disposing of the estate. The expenditure, I am informed, was not made directly or indirectly under the supervision of the "Expenses Committee." I may point out that an action is now pending which will give occasion for the discussion of any claims which the Royal Horticultural Society may consider themselves in a position to make, and that, as I think, it would be more convenient that questions of this sort should not be discussed in this House whilst that action is pending.

  INDIA—THE NORTH-WEST FRONTIER —THE ASSIGNED DISTRICTS.

    QUESTIONS.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Under Secretary of State for India,
    1408
    Whether the Government of India has explained to Her Majesty's Government the reason why they omitted to send home, with their despatch of the 2nd June last, a copy of the Schedule annexed to the Treaty of Peace concluded between the British Government and the Ameer of Affghanistan, which defines the limits of the districts assigned to the British Government; and if he will communicate such reason to the House; and, if he can state whether the omission will be rectified, so that the document in question may be laid upon the Table of House before Parliament rises for the vacation?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I believe the reason why the Schedule has not been sent home is because the limits of those assigned districts had to be demarcated by a mixed Commission; but as soon as we receive it we will lay it on the Table of the House.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: The Under Secretary of State has not answered the Question, whether the Indian Government had stated the reason they gave for not sending the Schedule when they sent the Despatch?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I have already stated the reason. I know of no other.

  THE MAHARAJAH DHULEEP SINGH.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. FAWCETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any Papers can be laid upon the Table in reference to the application that has been recently made to the Secretary of State for India in Council by Maharajah Dhuleep Singh for an increase in the allowance annually made to him out of the revenues of India, so that the House may have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject before any decision is arrived at to grant the increased allowance asked for?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I have consulted my noble Friend (Viscount Cranbrook), and I have to say that it is not the intention of the Government to lay on the Table any Papers on this subject at present. As I informed the hon. Member the other day, certain points have been referred for the opinion of the Government of India. When an answer has been received from India the whole matter will be very carefully

    1409
    considered by the Secretary of State in Council.
    MR. FAWCETT: May I ask, Whether, in the event of the reply of the Government of India not being received before the Session closes, Her Majesty's Government will undertake that no decision will he arrived at to give the increased allowance in question until next Session?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: No, I cannot give such an undertaking; and as to the Correspondence, it is very unusual to give any part of a Correspondence while it is still going on.
    MR. FAWCETTgave Notice that this Session he would take the earliest opportunity he could secure, on going into Committee of Supply, of calling attention to the matter, and moving a Resolution to the effect—
    "That, in the present condition of Indian finance, which rendered it expedient that efforts should he made to reduce the expenditure, the House was of opinion that the increased allowance asked for should not he granted."
    MR. ONSLOW,in consequence of the answer of the Under Secretary of State, gave Notice that he should take the earliest opportunity of asking him, If no Papers regarding an increased allowance to Maharajah Dhuleep Singh can be laid upon the Table of the House during the present Session, he can state the reasons why the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India is prepared to reopen the question, considering the present allowance to his Highness was fixed after the fullest consideration by the Government of India and the Home Government?

  LAW AND JUSTICE—CIVIL ASSIZES AT MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL.

    QUESTION.
    MR. RATHBONEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that, under the arrangements made by the judges for holding Civil Assizes at Manchester and Liverpool, only nine days were allowed at Manchester for a cause list of ninety-five eases, including thirty-eight special jury cases; that in consequence of the impossibility of concluding the business within that time, the judges suggested that cases unlikely to be reached at Manchester should be put down for Liverpool; and that this has been done
    1410
    to such an extent as to threaten to occupy much of the time available for Liverpool; whether he is aware that it has been proposed to have no October Civil Assizes for Lancashire, practically reducing, as regards Liverpool, the three Assizes, which the Judicature Commission considered inadequate for the work to be done, to little more than one; and, whether he will consider what steps can be taken to remedy this state of things, and to make impossible in future such disregard of the interests of suitors?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Taking the last Question first, I am quite sure the hon. Member for Liverpool does not intend to charge the learned Judges who went this Circuit with having neglected the public interests, but that his Question applies to the general arrangement of the Circuit.
    MR. RATHBONE: I did not wish to allude to the Judges who went the Circuit, but to the Judges who fixed the Northern Circuit.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I was quite certain the hon. Member would not have a word to say as to the Judges who went the Circuit. In regard to the second Question, I am informed that ample time was believed to have been given for the trial of the ordinary cases in Lancashire, and I have been furnished with a statement of the arrangements. Of course, the hon. Member knows that I have nothing to do with these arrangements; but the arrangements were so made that Lancashire should have its full share of the services of the learned Judges who went the Circuit. With regard to the first Question, I think the hon. Member is labouring under a misapprehension, and I will state generally what the arrangement was. Eleven days were allotted to Manchester, commencing from the 14th, which was the commission day, and ending on the 26th. A larger entry of cases was, however, made than ever occurred before, so that it was found that the list could not be tried out within the period fixed. The learned Judges, however, offered to take over to Liverpool all the cases that remained untried; but that they might not take precedence of the Liverpool cases, they required the parties to enter them in the Liverpool district, taking their chance as to when they would come on. There were 114 cases entered for trial at Liverpool, only seven of

    1411
    which came from the Manchester district. The learned Judge who gives me this information goes on to say that he does not know what is meant by the time available for Liverpool. Liverpool being the last place, trials go on until the list is exhausted; and he does not know of any remanets ever having been left there.
    MR. RATHBONE: Did not those 11 days include Sunday?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: No; 11 working days were allotted to Manchester—from Monday, the 14th, which was commission day, until Saturday, the 26th, inclusive.

  CYPRUS—ADMINISTRATION OF THE ISLAND—CIVIL POLICE FORCE.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, as the Government has abandoned its proposal of a Vote for the maintenance of a Military pioneer regiment in Cyprus, and has proposed a Vote for a body of civil police in the same Island which is estimated to cost £26,000 a-year, he will lay upon the Table of the House, before the Vote is taken, any Report showing the necessity for such a large expenditure for police in the island, and also any Report and Financial Statement showing the inability of Cyprus to bear the burden of its civil expenditure?
    MR. BOURKE: No Reports of the nature alluded to by the hon. Gentleman are in the possession of Her Majesty's Government. It will be my duty, in a few days, to move the Vote alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, and I shall take that opportunity of making a short statement to the House upon the subject. If, after hearing that statement, we are not fortunate enough to obtain the support of the hon. Gentleman, I feel, nevertheless, quite sure that the arrangement proposed is an economical one, and that it will be assented to by the House of Commons.
    MR. DODSONasked, If the Under Secretary of State could now state when the Government would be prepared to lay on the Table an account of the Revenue and Expenditure of Cyprus?
    MR. BOURKEsaid, he did not think he would be quite justified in answering that Question without Notice. He was
    1412
    aware that the subject had been mentioned before, and, therefore, the subject was not being lost sight of. Some of the accounts, however, had not yet come home, and therefore he had to ask the right hon. Gentleman to repeat the Question on some future day.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—CONSTABULARY EXPENSES.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. FRENCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he has seen a paragraph, which appeared in the Dublin "Evening Telegraph" of the 21st July, in which Mr. Stephen Seed, Crown Solictor for the County Kildare, addressing the Grand Jury at Naas, is reported to have spoken as follows:—
  "There was, lie was sorry to say, a good deal of undetected crime in the county. The county inspector had made a return of twenty indictable offences committed since last assizes, but of that number one-half was undetected. This was a bad state of facts, and amongt the causes which contributed to it was a rule of the constabulary force prohibiting, under pain of instant dismissal, any constable being refunded the expenses he was out of pocket in bringing offenders to trial;"
  and, whether, if such a rule exists, he will, seeing it is one which is likely to discourage constables in the detection of crime, take steps, in the interest of justice, to have it abolished?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I am afraid it must be admitted that there is a certain amount of undetected crime in the County Kildare, as well as in other parts of Ireland. I find that in that county there were several cases of sending threatening letters, and charges of that description, which have been undetected; but I think that is not due to the cause indicated by the Crown Solicitor. It appears that formerly a practice prevailed under which the Crown Solicitor disbursed sums of money practically on his own authority in the form of fees to constables engaged in tracing certain cases. That was a practice which did not work well; and a new rule was made to the effect that no constable or other police officer was to receive any money except through the local official chief of the force. That has been a great improvement on the course which formerly prevailed, though it may not have appeared in that light to the Crown Solicitor, who previously had the patronage in his own hands.
  MR. CALLAN: Sir, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, If he will inform the House under what peculiar circumstances it was that the Crown Solicitor was obliged to take this most unusual course of addressing the Grand Jury at the Assizes, and whether the Mr. Stephen Seed, who adopted this course, was the same gentleman who, with reference to the packing of jury panels in the County Meath, told the sub-sheriff "to leave that in his hands, and he would do it effectually?"
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I have not heard of the matter just alluded to; but I understand that, from time to time, this gentleman has made use of some strong statements. I do not know anything of the circumstances referred to.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—SUPERSESSION OF M. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST.—QUESTION.
  MR. E. JENKINSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that the Governor General of Canada has superseded M. Letellier de St. Just as Lieutenant Governor of Quebec; whether this was by advice of Her Majesty's Government; and, when he will lay the Papers upon the Table?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I think the statement is probably true, although I have received no official confirmation of it. Papers will be laid on the Table as soon as I have received them from the Governor General of Canada, which I expect will be in a few days, and then the hon. Member will be able to see exactly what has been done.

  ARMY—ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT—CLAIM OF MR. LYNALL THOMAS.

    QUESTION.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, since statements have been made on behalf of the Government that the system of heavy ordnance now in use in the service was originated in the Government factories, he can explain how it occurred that the jury gave a verdict in the case of Thomas against The Queen in favour of Mr. Lynall Thomas, for a sum of £6,500, for the expenses incurred by him in the production of the first heavy rifled guns?
    LORD EUSTACE CECIL, in reply, said, he had made inquiry at the War Office, but was unable to obtain any explanation of the extraordinary verdict which the jury had come to in the case referred to. He had no doubt that his hon. and learned Friends the Attorney General and Solicitor General might be able to throw some light upon the matter, as they represented the Crown on the occasion of the trial. He had, however, been informed of a fact of which, perhaps, his hon. and gallant Friend was ignorant—that the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court had come to the unanimous conclusion that the verdict should be set aside. One of the allegations was that the weight of the evidence was entirely against it. They would appear to have been as greatly surprised at the verdict as his hon. and gallant Friend was.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid., that in consequence of the answer which he had received, and which did not entirely agree with the facts, he should ask a further Question on the subject hereafter.

  NAVY—FLOGGING IN THE NAVY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it be the fact that a meeting of petty officers and seamen was held at Portsmouth to protest against the way in which the opinions of the men of the Navy, on the subject of flogging, had been misrepresented by certain Naval officers in Parliament; if Admiral Fanshawe issued a memorandum to captains of ships pointing out that such meetings were subversive of discipline; and, if Admiral Fanshawe has issued any memorandum to officers cautioning them against making public misrepresentations directly provoking to such breaches of discipline?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: There is no doubt, Sir, that a meeting was held at Portsmouth, at which petty officers and seamen were present, and the punishment of flogging was discussed; and it is the fact that Admiral Fanshawe, as Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouh, issued a memorandum cautioning the men from attending such meetings. He did so on his own responsibility, but with the entire subsequent approval of the Admiralty, as it is clearly the duty

    1415
    of officers in his position to warn men against being led into acts which are subversive of discipline and are breaches of the Queen's Regulations. The statements which the hon. Member alleges on his own authority to be misrepresentations, having been made in Parliament, do not come under the cognizance of the Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, and I apprehend it would be a breach of the Privileges of this House if he were to take notice of them.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, What was likely to be the first Order on Wednesday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Probably, Supply—the Educational Votes—but it is rather difficult to say at this stage. The East India Loan (£5,000,000) Bill will be taken at a convenient time.
  MR. CHILDERSunderstood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed on Thursday to make a statement as to the financial arrangements in connection with the Vote for the Zulu War, and asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay on the Table a day or two before Thursday the Estimate for that war, so that Members might have an opportunity of considering it before the Vote came to be discussed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not quite sure that it would be the most convenient course to lay the Estimate on the Table before Thursday. There will, of course, be plenty of opportunities for discussing it after I move the Vote. I propose, tomorrow, to take, as the first Order of the Day, the adjourned debate on the second reading of the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill, and later in the evening to take a Vote in Supply to pay off the Exchequer Bonds, which will be maturing during the autumn. On Thursday, I propose, in Committee of Ways and Means, to move Resolutions authorizing the Treasury to borrow the £2,000,000 in Consols which is to be advanced to India, and to borrow also the money required, for paying off the Bonds. On that evening I will lay on the Table the Estimate for the expenses of the Zulu War, and explain what the position of the question is, and I think that possibly
  1416
  it will be more convenient that serious debate on the subject should be reserved for a later day.
  MR. CHILDERS: Then the House will not be asked on Thursday to Vote the expense of the Zulu War, either in form or in substance?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No.?

  PRIVILEGE—(TOWER HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (METROPOLIS) COMMITTEE).
  The Sergeant at Arms, on being called upon by Mr. Speaker to inform the House what course he had taken in order to serve Mr. Speaker's Warrant upon Charles Edmund Grissell, reported as follows:—
  That, on receiving Mr. Speaker's Warrant to take into my custody Charles Edmund Grissell, I sent a Messenger of the House to Boulogne-sur-Mer to obtain information respecting him. The Messenger has returned and reported to me that he has seen Mr. Grissell, who is still at Boulogne-sur-Mer, beyond the jurisdiction of this House, and residing at the Hotel Bordeaux under the name of Graham.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. [Progress.]
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. [Progress.]

    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,034, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Expenses of the Queen's University in Ireland."
    MR. SHAWsaid, he had, at the desire of his hon. Friends around him, a request to make of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was that the two Votes which stood first upon the Paper, and had reference to the Queen's University and the Queen's Colleges, should be postponed. If the Government would consider the request he had made they would see its reasonableness. It was well known that the House had before it

    1417
    a Bill dealing with another department of this great question, and that the two subjects—the Bill and the Votes—were so dove-tailed that it would be impossible for them to discuss the one without discussing the other. He suggested the postponement in order to facilitate the Business of the House, because he was afraid that if they entered into a discussion of all the questions which would crop up upon these Votes they would occupy a good deal of time unnecessarily; whereas if they postponed the Votes they would get through a good deal of Business before the night was over. He did not, by saying this, in any way mean to threaten the Government. Nothing of the kind was meant; but the question was of such importance, the bearings of the Votes on the University Bill were so intimate and numerous, that, as a matter of necessity, if they discussed them, they must occupy an immense deal of time; and, moreover, the same ground would have to be traversed when considering the University Bill. He, therefore, hoped the Government would, before any further step was taken with respect to these Votes, decide to postpone them until some progress was made with the University Bill. It was hoped that that Bill would emerge from Committee a better Bill than it was when it went into Committee; and they were not without hopes that the Government would continue that process of equitable legislation which was the system of the present day. Some concessions had already been made with respect to Ireland; and, in the end, they would probably make a very fair Bill out of the one recently introduced. At the present moment, however, he earnestly trusted that the Government would yield to the proposed postponement. They were quite ready to discuss the Votes—they were not afraid to discuss them; but they must necessarily repeat themselves when discussing the Bill. He would not occupy the time of the House further; for he thought he had made out a good case, and had given reasons which ought to have weight with the Government. If the Government did not yield to his request he was prepared to move a substantive Motion, which would occupy some time in deliberating.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there could be no objection on the part of the Government to put
    1418
    off the Queen's Colleges and University Votes in order to go on with the other Votes, if that was a course which was most agreeable to hon. Gentlemen. But, on the other hand, it must be clearly understood that they did not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cork that they should put off the Votes until after the discussion on the University Bill. They would not enter into an engagement of that kind; but they were prepared to postpone the Votes for the present, and go on with the discussion of the other Votes, in the hope that such a course was most likely to save time.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERwas very reluctant to interpose, because he had not had the advantage of knowing that it was the intention of the hon. Member for Cork to make his request to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It now appeared, however, that he had made his request to postpone the Votes on a distinct ground. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that he would postpone the Estimates, though he did not recognize the ground. He would, therefore, ask the hon. Member for Cork what he gained by the postponement? If they put the University Bill out of all consideration, the present was as good a time for discussing the Queen's Colleges and University Estimates as any other; but it was because the Bill of the Government stood in the way, and because the Estimates were to be considered in connection with that Bill, that his hon. Friend asked for the postponement. The manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met the request was un can did; and he appealed to the Government to say whether they saw anything really objectionable in the ground on which the hon. Member made his request?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsubmitted that whatever was taken first—the University Bill or the Votes—it was most desirable, for the information of English and Scotch Members, that the Government should state whether they proposed to maintain the full Vote now given to the Queen's Colleges, in addition to the Vote proposed to be given to the Queen's University. If that were so, his and other hon. Gentlemen's views of the matter would be very considerably changed. He believed it would also make some difference in. the view the Irish Members would take.
    MR. SHAWdid not think it would be convenient that they should enter into a general discussion on the question. Of course, he would have preferred very much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acceded to his entire request; but he could not say that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the right hon. Gentleman had acted unfairly. They would take their chance in the matter; but they hoped the Government would see the reasonableness of connecting the two questions together, so that they might save time.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORK SAND BUILDINGS.
    (1.) £110,644, to complete the sum for Public Buildings, Ireland.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
    (2.) £22,340, to complete the sum for the Chief Secretary for Ireland Offices.
    (3.) £1,522, to complete the sum for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
    (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £95,826, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper against this Vote; but he had no wish to detain the Committee more than a few minutes. There were very important questions connected with the Local Government Board in Ireland which, some time ago, he thought it his duty to bring before the House at great length. He understood that during the last year a very eminent official had been promoted to the head of this Department; and at the beginning of his period of office he should be very sorry to cast any reflection upon the manner in which the office was conducted which might prejudice him in his career of usefulness. He only wished to observe that the workhouses in Ireland were built at a time when there was much pauperism throughout the country, and built for the accommodation of young and old, and for a large number of persons who could not obtain any
    1420
    means of livelihood. The latter class of paupers had now disappeared, and the workhouses had become almost exclusively the home of the young and the old; and, therefore, he thought it proper that, in considering the conduct of the Poor Law administration, their attention ought to be directed to the practice of making these houses suitable for the comfort and happiness of those classes. He could not see why, in Ireland, the French system should not be adopted. Some system of the kind had been adopted in England, and it was proposed to be adopted in Scotland—namely, that old married couples, who had attained 60 years of age, should live together in the workhouse as man and wife. There could be no possible objection to permitting this, and it would only be an act of kindness on the part of the Local Government Board. There was another very great grievance to which he wished briefly to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that was the question of the hospitals. There was no doubt that the workhouse hospitals in Ireland were managed upon an exceedingly unwise principle. Lately, the Report of a very eminent Commission on Poor Law had been presented; and one of the Poor Law Inspectors, on giving his Report to the Commission, drew attention especially to the question of nurses in hospitals. In many of the Unions in Ireland, simply with a view to economy, proper nurses were not employed to attend, the aged poor and the young children. At a small cost of a few additional pounds per annum the attendance of one regular nurse might be had to attend the sick. As was distinctly stated in the official Report presented to the House, at the present time women of the worst grade were made use of to attend to the sick. This was a most scandalous thing; and if it continued next year, and he had the honour of a seat in the House, he would be persistent in endeavouring to bring about a reform.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the question as to the treatment of aged paupers had been inquired into before a Commission. He regretted that, owing to causes connected with the course of Public Business, upon which it was unnecessary for him to dwell, the Government had not been able at present to take action upon the various matters

    1421
    dealt with in the Report of the Commission; but this would be done as soon as it was possible; and, therefore, he trusted that the hon. Member would not find it necessary to bring this question forward another year.
    MR. A. MOORE, in consideration of the recent appointment to the head of the Local Government Board in Ireland, did not wish to press his Motion to reduce the Tote by £4,000. He thought it only right that when a new official came into power he should have a fair and open field for his labours. The only other question to which he wished to call attention was the habit of overcrowding the occupants in some rooms of the workhouses, while other compartments remained empty. For instance, at Cavan, the conduct of the Guardians deserved the reprehension of every fair man.
    MR. SHAWsaid, that the Local Government Board in Ireland was, no doubt, a most respectable Board; but he had been for some time watching their movements, and he could not understand by what principles they were guided, especially in respect to their interference with Boards of Guardians. Of course, he admitted that, in many cases, interference with Boards of Guardians was necessary, because the tendency of Boards of Guardians was to cut down expenditure wherever the poor were concerned. There ought to be some authority to compel the Guardians to do their duty towards the poor, and to this extent he approved of the intervention of the Local Government Board. But it could not be denied that orders were issued by the authorities in Dublin making all sorts of changes involving taxation, and the Guardians were coerced, whether rightly or wrongly, to carry out those orders. If the proceedings of the Local Government Board were manifestly wrong, it seemed to him that there ought to be some authority to whom the Guardians could appeal. This ought to be particularly the case in questions which involved taxation. Of course, he was told that appeal could be made to the Chief Secretary; but, then, he was a Member of the Local Government Board, and though he did not attend much to its duties he would be prejudiced in favour of its decisions. He had known cases occurring in the West of his county, where the Local Govern-
    1422
    ment Board had been corresponding for some time with the Poor Law Guardians concerning the establishment of a new dispensary. The establishment of such an institution was against the opinions of the Board of Guardians and the ratepayers of the district, and the action of the Local Government Board had left the arrangements of the dispensary district in the greatest possible confusion. That was only one of a large number of cases of undue interference. In the case of one town in his county, the Local Government Board carried on a correspondence with the local authorities for months with the view of compelling them to become a Local Board of Health, When, if they had looked into Thom's Almanack they would have seen the population of the place was below the required number. In other instances, the Local Government Board had interfered most irrationally. The present state of things was most unsatisfactory, and ought to receive attention at the hands of the Government. It struck him very forcibly that there ought to be some central authority to which the decisions of the Local Government Board could, if requisite, be referred. He did not see why Poor Law Guardians should not be able to appeal to the Judge of Assize. At present, the mouths of the Guardians were closed. Sealed orders came down by which, in one district, the taxation had been increased by something like 5d. in the pound. There was not the slightest need for it; yet there was no power of appeal.
    MR. P. MARTINtrusted they would have this subject inquired into. He himself had received remonstrances from several Boards of Guardians, who considered that they had been unfairly treated by the Local Government Board. He was of opinion that the Local Government Board of Ireland, in many respects, conducted their business admirably; but, notwithstanding that opinion, he thought there should be some controlling power, so that in cases where Guardians saw fit to contest their decisions they should have the means of doing so. The Government could not, in justice, object to a power of revision and appeal being vested in some impartial body, which, sitting in the locality from which the complaint came, would investigate and determine what ought to be done. It was rather

    1423
    for Government than private Members to suggest the constitution of such a body; but, in his judgment, the appeal ought to be made to a more popular tribunal than the Judge of Assize. The Chief Secretary was necessarily absent for lengthened periods, and could not give the personal supervision required on the part of the Board for the more efficient working of the system; and many of those matters in dispute between the Board in Dublin and the Guardians required an examination to be had open to the public. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would listen to the remonstrances now made, and give some assurance that the grievance would be remedied.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked how it was that the English Local Government Board acted so differently towards Boards of Guardians to the Irish Board; how was it that, unlike the Irish Board, it worked in perfect unison with the wishes of the people? It was because the English Board was amenable to the House of Commons, while the Irish Board was not. The English Board was represented by a gentleman whose sole duties were connected with the Board; and in the case of Ireland the Local Government Board, and all the other Boards, were thrown on the shoulders of one man, and the Local Government Board was perfectly independent of the House of Commons. He fully agreed that there ought to be the power of appeal against the decisions of the Board, but believed that an appeal to some more popular tribunal than the Judge of Assize was necessary. They wanted an appeal to this House; and the way to give that appeal was to take the charge of the Local Government Board away from the present Chief Secretary, and place it in the hands of a gentleman who would have no other duties to perform. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) had referred to instances in which the Local Government Board in Ireland had overruled the wishes of Boards of Guardians. In the part of the country from which he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) came this was a matter of constant occurrence. Some time ago, an addition was about to be made to the salary of the chaplain attending the large workhouse at Limerick. It had been resolved, by large majorities of the Board, to make the increase; but
    1424
    the Local Government Board positively refused to sanction it. In respect to the proposal to constitute the Judge of Assize a Court of Appeal, he might observe that he had always found that the tendency of the Irish Judicial Bench had been to uphold the authority of subordinate officials in Dublin. For this reason, he should certainly prefer that the appeal should be made to the House of Commons; and this could be done by a re-organization of the responsibility of the Irish Departments. He only desired to say, further, that in the confusion which prevailed with regard to the Votes for the Queen's University and Colleges several very important Irish Votes were passed, and amongst them was that for the Chief Secretary's Office. He had an Amendment on the Paper to reduce that Vote by £4,000, which he should have great pleasure in moving on Report.
    MR. SYNANdid not agree with the remedy which the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) had proposed. He could understand the wisdom of appeals against the decisions of the Local Government Board; but the proposal to appeal to the Judge of Assize in matters of administration appeared to him simply incomprehensible. The root of the evil was that the Local Government Board in Ireland was not represented in the House of Commons. It was absurd for the Chief Secretary to tell them he represented the Local Government Board. It was impossible that he could attend to the administration of five Departments at one time. It was difficult to comprehend why it was that it had never occurred to the Government of this country to have such a Board as the Local Government Board of Ireland, representing all the local administration in Ireland, directly represented in the House of Commons by some Gentleman to whom appeal could be made in case of irregularity or illegality. There was no doubt that the manner in which local bodies in Ireland were treated was intolerable. Such treatment would not be tolerated by any body in England; why, therefore, should they be subjected to it in Ireland? Because they had no appeal; because there was no one to whom the Irish Members could appeal. If they appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, they found that he knew nothing about the matter. When

    1425
    he was asked questions he had to confer with the Local Government Board in Ireland. If they wanted the present state of things remedied, the Local Government Board of Ireland must be represented in this House, like the Local Government Board in England.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he had a Motion on the Paper having reference to the Irish Board of Works; but, probably, it would be better if he took this opportunity of mentioning to the Chief Secretary and to the House some matters of importance connected with the subject. The Local Government Board and the Board of Works in Ireland had between them the actual material government of Ireland. The Local Government Board, of course, was composed of Commissioners; and he would suggest to the Government that they should adopt, in respect to it, a course similar to that adopted in regard to the Board of Works—namely, to appoint a Departmental Committee to investigate the operations of the Board. In that way they would get a body of reliable evidence, and the public would know what the Board was doing, and what it intended to do. The recommendation which had found some favour was that the Local Government Board and the Board of Works should be so fused together that they would have one responsible head in the House of Commons. If they had a Minister in the House responsible for these Departments they would be able to ascertain what was being done, and to obviate evils which now arose without the possibility of remedy. The Local Government Board, for instance, on its own motion, had the power of fixing the qualification of Poor Law Guardians. In some districts the qualification was very low—from £7 to £8—but in other districts it was very high. In the very poorest districts in Ireland—namely, in the West—the Local Government Board was pleased, nearly 20 years ago, to raise the qualification to a higher figure than that of any other district in Ireland; and this was done because it was said that there had been some corruption about tenders for supply. Whether that was true or not he did not know; but he knew what was alleged to have happened a generation ago. The people in the neighbourhood had begged the Local Government Board to reduce the
    1426
    qualification to the ordinary amount in other parts of Ireland. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had himself taken a great deal of pains in this matter. Before Sir Alfred Power resigned his position on the Board he saw him on the subject, and he promised to take it into serious consideration. Nothing, however, had been done. The object of the increase of the qualification was perfectly plain. It was that the Guardians should consist only of a certain number of rich, and, principally, Protestant gentleman. This was enough to make any people discontented, and, therefore, he hoped the Chief Secretary would give the matter his serious consideration. Another matter there was which was of importance, owing to the great alterations introduced into sanitary laws of late years. The Board of Works in Ireland performed the functions of the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, and had to inquire into the security offered for any loans advanced for sanitary purposes; and the Board of Works had also the function—which, on the whole, they discharged very well—of advancing loans of money for material improvements in various parts of the country, and, for this purpose, had at their disposal an engineering staff. When the Sanitary Act was passed the Local Government Board claimed to be the authority to determine the loans for sanitary purposes. It was unwilling to have its authority trenched upon, and was unwilling to strip itself of any authority which it claimed inherently or secondarily. But the Local Government Board had no engineering staff to examine the plans submitted by applicants for loans for sanitary purposes, while the Board of Works had an engineering staff. There was thus a difficulty here; and then followed a long correspondence, and then the Local Government Board referred the point to the Treasury in London. The Treasury, after hearing the quarrel between the Boards, came to this decision. The duties of the two Boards—the Local Government and the Board of Works—in regard to sanitary loans, were decided to be the Local Government Board to recommend the loans after ascertaining the utility of the project, and to enter into the engineering merits and sufficiency of the plans, but, at the same time, to have resort to the advice of the Board of Works, who

    1427
    had the engineering staff competent to do the work; and to the Board of Works was allotted the duty of inquiry into the security offered by the applicants. The Local Government Board got leave to supplement their staff with an engineering officer, but they did not avail themselves of it; but it happened they had a clerk who, at some time of his life, was supposed to know something of engineering, and it was made part of his duty to examine the plans. But this examination was never carried out.
    MR. J. LOWTHERexplained, that an engineer had since been appointed to the Local Government Board.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYcontinued. That was just the point brought forward by the Committee, and it was their Re-port that brought these facts to light—that the Sanitary Laws were construed in the most absurd way, and many of them were utterly useless, and largely owing to the neglect of the Local Government Board. To go into the subject would be to disclose a most extraordinary state of things. The Local Government Board never examined the plans at all when loans were applied for; and, further than that, they objected to share the responsibility. They said—"We are not responsible for the loans; we are not responsible for the plans advised by the local engineers;" and yet they had been told by the Treasury they were responsible, and they themselves claimed the responsibility. When it was asked of them—"Suppose the first instalment has been advanced, and the applicants come forward for a second instalment, what security have you that the first instalment has been properly laid out?"—a sum, perhaps, of £10,000 or £20,000—"Oh," the answer was, "we have no security; we never examine into the question whether the money has been properly laid out; we assume it has been, and the locality, having got the first instalment, when it was asked for got the second instalment also." It might seem unreasonable to take up the time of the Committee with more details; but if hon. Members would take up the Report of the evidence they would find it showed an extraordinary state of things; and it was just those details that were at the bottom of half these Irish grievances. It was of no use giving support here and there, unless, in giving that support, Government would take into considera-
    1428
    tion the material advancement of the country. References were made from one Board to another, not one of which had sympathy with the popular requirements, who neglected their duty, and were responsible to no one. What responsibility was it to the Treasury? The Secretary to the Treasury was, perhaps, the hardest-worked man in the House; and with his utmost attention, and with all his grasp of mind, he could not master all the questions relating to sanitary loans; and he submitted that a case had been made out for inquiry into the constitution and administration of the Local Government Board in Ireland.
    MR. VERNERdid not think that either of the two propositions which had been put forward—namely, an appeal to a Judge, or an official directly responsible for the Board in that House, would remedy the matters complained of; nor did he believe it would be advisable to accede to them. The Local Government Board often did what he disapproved of, and he had been nursing his wrath for some time against it on account of some flagrant misdeeds; but after hearing the complaints from the other side of the House, some of them being directed against the Board for following in certain cases a policy which he (Mr. Verner) agreed with and considered to be the right one, he said that there were undoubtedly two sides to the question, and that the Local Government Board had a very hard task before them, which, in the main, was creditably and satisfactorily fulfilled. With regard to the proposal to send another Irish official to sit on the Bench below him, he thought that, looking at the life led by the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland, proverbially brave as Irishmen might be, an Irish gentleman would hesitate to accept such a position.
    MR. CALLANhoped that the same course would not be followed in reference to the Local Government Board as was adopted with the Board of Works two years ago. He was himself invited to go before that Departmental Committee; but, knowing something of such inquiries, he refused, and the result had justified his apprehensions. The Committee took a large amount of evidence, and they made their Report; but the Government had done nothing upon the

    1429
    recommendations of that Report, and absolutely the time occupied in giving the evidence was wasted public time, and money had been expended without any result. He hoped that any mode of dealing with the Local Government Board would be shorter, sharper, and more decisive. With reference to raising the qualifications of Poor Law Guardians, there was a sliding scale provided by the Act; and he, for one, would favour the qualification for Guardians being placed much higher than it was at present. He should say the qualification of voters should be reduced, and that of Guardians raised. He should like to hear the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) explain whether, in the Unions to which he had referred, it was the practice to admit, as ex-officio Guardians, men who had no qualifications? There were too many instances of this, and it conduced very much to the encouragement of jobbery. He did not think that any moderate man would wish to see the qualifications for Guardians reduced at present. With reference to the Local Government Board, he hoped the re-construction of the Board of Works would be an example to follow. At the head of the latter an Irishman had been substituted for an Englishman, a change which had given much satisfaction. In the action of the Local Government Board in refusing to accede to the desire of Guardians to reduce salaries there was much reason to complain. There had been a wave of depression all over Ireland, and in the Union of Dundalk the Guardians had almost unanimously decided to reduce the salaries of their officers all round some 7½ per cent. But the proposition was refused, and the Board in Dublin declined to give a deputation any reason for the refusal; they simply declined to allow any of the salaries to be reduced. But in the same county another Board of Guardians went to the Local Government Board; but, perhaps, because they made the application in more humble form, it was acceded to. In Dundalk, however, in the face of an almost unanimous vote, it was refused. This was a point upon which there should be some explanation, some reason assigned as guiding the Board in its decision. But as to having a representative of the Local Government Board in the House, that would be a most unfortunate ar-
    1430
    rangement. Such an official would be much better employed doing his duty in Ireland than in sitting in the House and voting en bloc with the other Members of the Government. It would be of great advantage if, during the winter Recess, the Chief Secretary for Ireland went over and attended some of the meetings of the Local Government Board, with a view to make himself acquainted with the manner in which business was conducted. He was certain that if the right hon. Gentleman did so his natural sense of justice would compel them to exercise a wise controlling power, and give reasons for the decisions which he was obliged to uphold in that House.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he was not aware of any reasons for retaining the existing qualifications for Guardians of the poor. The qualification formerly required of Members of that House had been abolished; and if they had abolished it in one case he did not see why they should retain it in another. But with reference to the Local Government Board, it was a question that had engaged attention for years past. For four or five years Irish Members had been pleading for an inquiry into the constitution and management of the Board. For a long time they had urged the same thing with regard to the Board of Works, and the same reasons for resisting that inquiry were made as were now made in regard to the Local Government Board. The Departmental Committee which at last inquired into the Board of Works did its work admirably. It was a most useful Committee, and no blame attached to them because their recommendations had not been carried out by the Government. They had collected, an amount of evidence which must be valuable when the re-organization came. He was convinced that equally good reasons could be shown for re-organizing the Local Government Board; and there was no reason why inquiry should be deferred Session after Session. This Board possessed the most extensive and arbitrary powers. It really had a power of veto over every sanitary authority in Ireland. The entire administration of the Public Health Aot—which was one of the most important Acts ever passed for any country—was subject to the ulterior supervision of the Local Government Board, which had a veto upon every action of every sanitary

    1431
    authority, and also had the power of initiating, if the sanitary authority did not think fit to carry out certain measures. But the Local Government Board had not a third as much knowledge of sanitary matters as the authorities over whom they exercised control, and sometimes issued the most ridiculous directions. For instance, during the small pox epidemic in Dublin, they insisted that the Dublin authorities should provide extra conveyances, although the latter showed that they were not required, and would not be used. However, they were obliged to submit to a compulsory letter, and cabs were provided at a cost of £100 to the ratepayers, and were not used twice. In many other cases the powers of the Board had been exercised in an arbitrary and a ridiculous fashion. How was the Board constituted up to three months ago? Its President was the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and an ex-officio member of the Board was the Under Secretary. These they might take as two ornamental members of the Board, who did that duty admirably; but neither of them took any very active part in the administration of the Board, and, in fact, they could not be expected to do so. Then there was the Vice President of the Board, Sir Alfred Power, an officer who had done good work in his day; but who, it was admitted, had become incapable of discharging the duties, and, in fact, had only retained his office until he had secured his son in a lucrative position. That having been secured, he retired, and it would have been better had he done so 10 years before. He had served for 40 years, and during the last six or eight years of his tenure of office was unfit to be the head of the Department and for the duties intrusted to him. He was assisted by another member of the Board—the Hon. Mr. Bellew—but who did nothing but sign formal documents and draw his salary. Then there was the Medical Commissioner, Dr. Croker King; but what effective work had he initiated in sanitary reform? The real work of the Board, then, was vested in the Vice President. He acknowledged that the successor of Sir Alfred Power was a gentleman thoroughly competent for that position. He did not think that the Government could possibly have made a better appointment than that of Mr. Robinson, and he had no doubt that
    1432
    that gentleman would discharge the duties admirably; but even with his advice and assistance the Board was not strong enough to have the public confidence, when they held the power of veto over the Dublin Corporation, and other local authorities in whom the public had every confidence. They might make a good appointment now and again; but there never would be a satisfactory system until the Board was made responsible to the public. The Chief Secretary could do no more than, when questions were put to him, send to Dublin for replies and act as the mouthpiece of the Board. Why, a Secretary to the Treasury could do this quite as well. In the first place, to command confidence, the Board should be composed of gentlemen of high position; and, in the next place, it should be directly represented in the House. This was not merely his own view, but the opinion of the majority who had thought upon the subject in connection with the administration of the Public Health Act; and in view of the appeal made year after year there certainly ought to be an inquiry into the Office. Only after such an inquiry would public confidence be created by the re-establishment of the Board in a position and under a system to facilitate useful reforms. The result of the inquiry into the Board of Works justified a similar inquiry into the Local Government Board.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Verner) was very much mistaken in supposing that it was suggested, or in any way wanted, to add to the number of Her Majesty's Ministers another, charged with the duty of looking after this Board. There was an Irish Lord of the Treasury, the Member for Enniskillen (Viscount Crichton), who had nothing whatever to do; and it was supposed that, in order to occupy his leisure, he would be given charge of the Board of Works—probably at the Greek Kalends. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had shown the communication between the two Boards. Now, what was to prevent the noble Lord the Member for Enniskillen taking charge of these two Boards, and coming to the House responsible for its action, and prepared to explain it? This was a way of remedying the grievance, without adding another to the existing num-

    1433
    ber of Irish places. If they wanted to make these bodies really useful, what they ought to do was to give them an elective character; but, in the absence of this, the best thing they could do was to make use of the noble Lord whom they were keeping in petto here.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that the general complaint was not that the Local Government Board had too many powers, but that it exercised the powers it possessed in a very arbitrary manner. There was nothing more demanded of Irish Members than that they should insist upon a reform of this power. It not only put aside, in the most peremptory manner, the wishes of all who wore carrying on the work of the Poor Law, but it actually endeavoured to set itself above the law. For instance, while the Public Health Act of 1878 was before the House, a question arose as to the insertion of certain provisions. Sir Alfred Power strongly objected to these, and fought out his case with the late Chief Secretary and the Attorney General. But the House, after giving full consideration to the matter, approved of the statements made by himself and other Irish Members, and inserted them in the Act. There were two things of which great complaint was made. First, the mode of payment of medical officers, which was by scale, the result being that men got exactly the same whether they had no duties, or whether all their time was taken up. That was very irregular, and very wrong, yet Sir Alfred Power wished to adhere to that provision; and, though he was beaten, he refused to alter the scale of payment or to carry out the provisions of the Act. Now, he wished to know whether the Local Government Board, under its new Vice President, would still insist on thus setting the law at naught, and acting on the provisions of the Act of 1874, which had been repealed. There were one or two other points in which he took great interest. First, there was the Vaccine Department. He had brought this question before the House in 1874 and 1875, when he pointed out that although, for the purposes of the Vaccine Lymph Institution, the Local Government Board in England had a Vote of £20,200, in Ireland but £600 was voted. He admitted that, owing to persistent agitation, the £600 had been now doubled; but even that was a very
    1434
    small sum, and complaints were frequent that the supplies of lymph in Ireland were not sufficient, that the means for vaccination were inadequate, and that the number of applications refused were considerable, as they had recently had an epidemic of small-pox in Dublin; and, therefore, he hoped that this matter would be attended to, and that in future, at any rate, the supply would be unlimited, and that every medical man would have all he required. Beyond the £20,200.given to England for the gratuitous distribution of lymph, £16,000 was given by way of bonuses for successful vaccination, and the consequence was that in England the system had been brought to great perfection. There was no public vaccinator in England who did not do what he could to prevent small-pox. No similar sums were given in Ireland. It was surely as important to prevent small-pox in Ireland as it was in England, and he asked how they could account for the marked disparagement in the different grants? They had received a promise that the new Vice President would look into this matter, or, otherwise, he certainly should have felt inclined to move a reduction of the Vote. The matter deserved the immediate attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    MR. J. LOWTHER,in reply, said, the Government had this Session introduced a Bill which they were most anxious to pass dealing with the question of vaccination in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman had an Amendment against that Bill, which he very considerately withdrew, and if others imitated his example he believed they would be in a fair way of getting their Bill. However, if hon. Members availed themselves of their right to move Amendments, it would not be the fault of the Government if the measure did not pass into law. As regarded the medical officers, he believed a satisfactory arrangement had been concluded. His experience as Secretary of the former Poor Law Board of England would not justify the comparisons which had been drawn between the administration of local government affairs in England and in Ireland, and it frequently happened in England that the central authority did run counter to the decisions of the local Boards of Guardians. The President of the Local Government Board,

    1435
    like his Predecessor, the President of the Poor Law Board, was the head of the Office, and those influential gentlemen whose names figured as belonging to the Board did not exist for purposes of administration. The President had his secretary and staff, and was, for all practical purposes, the Board. Then, it had been said that the Chief Secretary-was merely the mouthpiece of the Board in Dublin. Well, first of all, it had been said that the Board in Dublin did not exist, and then that he was merely its mouthpiece. He would remind the Committee that it was his duty, when inquiries were made, to represent the Department in Parliament, and very often, where he had no personal knowledge, he could not make statements to the House unless his information were derived from the Department in Ireland; and that information, in turn, was derived from references to localities in different parts of Ireland. To that extent he was the mouthpiece of the clerk collecting the information. Nevertheless, as he was President of the Local Government Board, he considered himself responsible for that Department. Then it was said the Board was arbitrary. Well, it was true that they did object to children suffering from cutaneous diseases being placed together in one bed; and when their attention was called to a matter of that kind they did think it their duty to make representation to the local authorities. Again, they thought it was a very undesirable system to transport small-pox patients in ordinary hackney carriages; and when they were asked about it the Board did think it was a very proper matter to represent to the local authorities. As to sanitary works, the Local Government Board had recently appointed an engineer, who was a gentleman of some eminence in Ireland; and though he would not forestall the discussion on the Vote for the Board of Works, it would be found, when it came on, that a general re-organization was contemplated.
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had given no assurance that he would look into the case of the local hospitals.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the discussion had taken so wide a turn that he had overlooked the question of the hon. Member. He had done so quite unin-
    1436
    tentionally, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman the matter should have his best attention.
    MR. SHAWsaid, he did not believe any change could be made in the Local Government Board which would be satisfactory. It did not matter what head was put on it, if its body and whole constitution remained the same. If, however, the new Vice President, who was to investigate it, were to enlarge it in some directions, and limit it in others, they might get a really good Board. The right hon. Gentleman had not said whether he would grant the Commssion of Inquiry. He was himself no opponent of Parliamentary representation of Departments, because it brought those Departments under the control of public opinion; but he did not believe that that House was a very good place for the redress of grievances which arose in the administration of Local Government Boards. They were too far off the people of Ireland in that House to hear the voice of their complaints; and even if it reached them there they could not interpret the complaints to the House, and even if they did the House would not take it as the public voice of Ireland. The things referred to might seem small; but they were very considerable matters to the ratepayers, and they interfered very greatly with the working of the Boards and of the Poor Law Guardians. They caused constant and endless irritation and friction, and they brought about a waste of time and correspondence which ought never to be initiated. He suggested that there should be some mode of appeal—some outside body—to whom the Guardians, if they thought they were aggrieved, could go in matters of discussion. He did not, as a general rule, like lawyers; but when barristers did come to be Judges they somehow managed to put off a great part of the evils which beset them during their career, and became, on the Bench, men of remarkable common sense, and with great knowledge of the country. He suggested, then, that there should be some power given to make a presentment to the Grand Jury; and, if they endorsed it, that the matter should come before the Judge. At any rate, if the right hon. Gentleman would not accept this, he hoped he would institute some sort of outside body to which the Guardians could appeal.
    MR. MELDONpointed out, that the Vaccination Bill which the Government had introduced had nothing whatever to do with the question he had raised. Here, in England, medical men were paid from 1s. 6d. to 3s. from the local rates; while up to the present time in Ireland the uniform fee was Is. Besides this contribution from the local rates, there was a grant from the Imperial Exchequer of £16,000, which also was given to the medical officers. He might be told, of course, that that was done under an Act of Parliament; but he did not see why the Chief Secretary could not introduce a similar Bill for Ireland.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENremarked, there was not one of them who, when they went home to their district, did not hear of some differences which had arisen in the Poor Law administration which had been referred to the Local Government Board, about which great discontent had arisen. He would put it to the Government whether, when such a feeling existed, they should not attempt to remove it in the fairest possible way by full, complete, and independent inquiry? He could conceive nothing more desirable than to remove the sense of grievance widely spread among the people, even although there was no grievance to justify it. As to what had been said with reference to Sir Alfred Power, he had had the honour of enjoying his friendship for many years; and though he did not say he was infallible, yet, having watched his action on the Board for many years, he did believe that the people of Ireland owed him a debt of' gratitude for Ms care in the administration of the Poor Law, and his desire to do what was right and just to all classes of society.
    MR. GRAYexplained, that he made no attack on Sir Alfred Power, and what he had said did not prevent him agreeing with the remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir Patrick O'Brien). He thoroughly recognized his services, and believed he was an admirable Poor Law administrator for a long time; he did not think it was any imputation on his character or ability to say that, after serving 35 years in a very laborious office, he might, with advantage to himself and his office, have retired. He might, if he had chosen, have retired long before; and what he maintained
    1438
    was that Sir Alfred Power kept his post in order to get his son nominated to a very lucrative office. Since that was done he had retired, and he believed, that was why he had not retired before.
    MR. RYLANDS,without interfering in the discussion, would just remark that Irish Members had not a monopoly of grievance with regard to centralization, and that this complaint of the central administration over-riding local boards was by no means creating irritation in Ireland alone; it was creating great irritation in England also, and it was a matter which, the House of Commons would do well seriously to consider, whether, in some way or another, there could not be a system of decentralization adopted which would secure in these localities the exercise of public spirit, and the fulfilment of public duties by many gentlemen who at present shrank from office in consequence of the interference of the central body. It seemed to him that the request for an inquiry into the complaints of the Boards of Guardians was not an unreasonable one. He gathered, from the statement made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Gray), that the inquiry into the management of the Board of Works had had the effect of bringing under the notice of Government some important information; and he should, therefore, certainly be disposed to support his hon. Friend in urging the Government to inquire into the administration of the Local Government Board.
    MR. J. LOWTHERcould fully endorse what had been said with regard to the important services rendered by Sir Alfred Power. During the great Famine crisis, as was well known, he rendered signal services to the country, and he was very glad that it should go forth that there was only one opinion as to the extent to which they were indebted to him. It had been suggested that an inquiry, analogous to that which took place in regard to the Board of Works, might be held with regard to the Local Government Board. He thought, however, that the circumstances of the two Departments were very different; and as a new Vice President of the Local Government Board had just been appointed, he would ask him at once to turn his attention to the various matters of which complaint had been made, while the effect of an inquiry would merely be to hang the whole matter up

    1439
    for a very considerable time. Instead of waiting for an inquiry outside the Department, therefore, it appeared to him that the Government should conduct an inquiry itself, and the result of the consideration of those matters had already been that improvement in certain directions had taken place—for instance, the appointment of an engineer, which would enable them to exercise a far more efficient superintendence over the advances to Local Boards than was formerly the case. Various minor grievances had also been engaging his attention, and he hoped they would be satisfactorily dealt with. A general revision of the respective duties of the two Boards had also occupied attention, and he would not forestall the discussion by stating all that was proposed to be done. The appeal from the Local Government Board to some unnamed tribunal did not appear to satisfy anybody, and it only showed the difficulty of forming such a body, with reference to which he might point out that there was no such tribunal in England. He was induced to agree with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) with regard to decentralization. He was himself very shy of interfering with local self-government, and never approved of so doing whenever it could possibly be avoided. He hoped, however, that the Committee would not, on an Irish Vote, propose to go into a general discussion on a subject of that sort. If there wore any practical abuses they were prepared to deal with them, without the assistance of any Committee of Inquiry, which assurance he trusted would satisfy the Committee.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENdid not intend to go into the question of decentralization, but wished to say that he did not agree with the action of the Government in making a departmental inquiry. What they wanted was that a full, searching, and public inquiry should be made into the allegation that the people were hardly treated. He did not say that they were so treated; but what he wanted to impress upon the Government was that the case was such that a general and independent inquiry should have been made. He hoped the Chief Secretary would consider whether an inquiry of a public character could not be carried out.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the remarks of the Chief Secretary did not contain any satisfactory answer to the complaints that had been made. At the same time, he admitted that there was very great difficulty in suggesting any scheme which would meet the want. The question was—what was to be the appeal from an important Department of that sort? The appeal could only be to Parliament. There was really no other body which could decide upon appeals from so important a Department as the Local Government Board. But those appeals could not come to that House, because the vast majority of the Members were so utterly out of harmony with Irish opinion, and were necessarily so ignorant with regard to local circumstances in Ireland, that the appeal must be quite nugatory. He would not enter on the Home Rule question by a side wind; but they could not shut their eyes to the fact that there could be no appeal worthy attention from that Department, except to Parliament. While there could not be an appeal from the Board to the Imperial Parliament, because this House had neither the faculties nor the power, to say nothing of the inclination, to deal with these local affairs. They could, therefore, have no appeal except to an Irish Parliament, which was the only solution of the question. Hon. Members, before long, would be taxing their ingenuity how to provide a proper body to which appeals might be made on matters of Irish local interest; and he did not care what they called their plan, as they would have to come to the scheme of an Irish Parliament in the long run. He had a very grave complaint to make as to the decision of this Irish Department, and he was compelled to bring it before that House, although it was notoriously incapable of dealing with the subject, and they knew the opinion of that House was not worth the turn of a halfpenny, and that the vast majority of the 658 hon. Members did not know too much about England and Scotland, to say nothing of Ireland. He was obliged to take the only course open to him, and was obliged to raise this very important question on this Vote. He was quite aware that nine-tenths of the Gentlemen listening to him did not know anything about it, and did not want to know anything about it, and that when he had done the Chief

    1441
    Secretary would not be much wiser than he was at the present moment. The Chief Secretary depended on a number of officials for his information, these very officials being the gentlemen against whom he was appealing. It was all very well to talk about obstruction; but just look at the way in which his business was obstructed. He was bound to bring this matter forward, although his clients would get no satisfaction whatever, and the Office in Dublin would go on unrebuked, unchecked, and unconvicted. It would be a legislative farce, and yet he must go through the farce. He complained of the Department for refusing to grant a fuller and more impartial inquiry when the first inquiry was challenged on the very strongest grounds. He should, therefore, propose to reduce the Vote by £700, the salary of the Inspector of whom he complained. That gentleman, Mr. Hamilton, recently conducted an inquiry into a disputed election in Cardendonogh, Inneshowen, in the county of Donegal. There were two candidates, Mr. B. O'Doherghty, and Mr. Ackland. The result was to return the former by a large number of votes. Complaint was made that the majority was fictitious, and that of a very large number of votes entered there was not the least guarantee that they were given. Mr. Ackland had been the member for several years; he was a general favourite, and a careful and economical Guardian; and they had every reason to believe he would be re-elected. The Local Government Board ordered an inquiry, and Mr. Hamilton was sent down. He certainly gave satisfaction to a very considerable extent, for he struck off a great number of votes; but it was contended that he conducted the investigation in such a manner that, notwithstanding the deductions, he still allowed many invalid votes to remain. It was pointed out that in several of the cases where pluralist votes had been wrongly given, instead of condemning all as illegal, he would strike one or two off out of the number, although, surely, if a vote was illegal, the whole paper was necessarily invalid. It was utterly incomprehensible how Mr. Hamilton was able to discriminate between these votes. In a lot of six, for instance, he would eliminate two, and not invalidate the other four. Again, a large number of illiterate votes were objected to, because
    1442
    they were illegally marked, and the Inspector allowed some to be illegal, but permitted others to remain. It was very clearly and distinctly provided that in the case of illiterate votes a mark must be placed on the paper and attested by a witness. In a multitude of these cases no such attestation had been made. Yet Mr. Hamilton, in the most extraordinary manner, allowed some of the votes, but also refused to allow some of his own mistakes to be corrected. Again, other witnesses showed that the marks had been entered in their absence, and without their consent, yet Mr. Hamilton refused to hear those protests. There were other circumstances of this kind, all of which showed that a further inquiry was necessary, and he could not at all understand why it had been refused. This complaint had created great public indignation in the county, and had excited much attention, but he did not suppose hon. Members cared about it one penny. It was, of course, a solemn sham to bring this matter before the House of Commons; but as long as the present system continued, he was obliged to do so.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £4,200, for Salaries of Inspectors, be reduced by £700."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, in reply to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), that Mr. Hamilton, who conducted the inquiry to which attention had been called, was a very able member of the staff of the Local Government Board. The hon. Member had said that the same amount of disappointment would be felt by a person who was unsuccessful in his endeavours to obtain the appointment of Poor Law Guardian, through the decision of Mr. Hamilton, as would be felt by any gentleman who might unsuccessfully aspire to Membership of the House of Commons. The answer to that was that the gentleman selected to inquire into this election was in every way fitted for that duty. There was no doubt that every attempt had been made by him to arrive at a just conclusion, and that substantial justice had been done in this matter. He had no objection to the hon. Member bringing before the House any matter with which it was competent to deal; but he thought it desirable that the Committee

    1443
    should confine itself to questions of general supervision. The Petition for the re-hearing of the case referred to was, in his opinion, uncalled for.
    MR. BIGGARthought the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it did not, in the slightest degree, go into the merits of the case, nor explain upon what grounds the action of Mr. Hamilton was to be defended. He (Mr. Biggar) regarded it as a matter of very serious importance that persons should have denied point blank that the signatures to the voting papers were not theirs, and that Mr. Hamilton had not attempted to find out the names of the parties whose names appeared upon those papers as witnesses. He had known of a case of election as Poor Law Guardians, in which certain persons were prosecuted and severely punished for forging the names of persons on the voting papers. For these reasons, he could not help thinking, that if the statements of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) were correct, Mr. Hamilton had thoroughly neglected his duties in the matter of the Cardendonogh election of Poor Law Guardians, and he considered the hon. Member was bound to divide the Committee on his Motion, unless some satisfactory explanation were forthcoming. The point raised by the hon. Member was a vital one, and ought not to have been decided by an irresponsible person. And if the allegation were true, that the person whose name appeared on the voting paper declared that he had not signed it, the Government should certainly not attempt to screen the guilty parties.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he intended to take a Division upon this Vote, although he knew that he should be opposed by an overwhelming number of hon. Gentlemen who knew nothing, and cared nothing, about the Poor Law election in Cardendonogh. The Chief Secretary for Ireland himself knew nothing about it, and, very naturally, had given no anwer whatever to the complaint made. If such a case had occurred in England, and, upon reference being made thereto in the House of Commons, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had returned an answer similar to that which had just been given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland—namely, that the
    1444
    officer whose conduct had been complained of was a very valuable member of the staff—such a fire of indignant eloquence would have followed as would have perturbed that singularly calm and composed official. Even if the Chief Secretary for Ireland knew more than he did about the case in question, his observations upon it would be thrown away upon the hon. Gentlemen by whom he was surrounded. He felt that in dividing the Committee the division would be taken in the dark; that not five Members would understand anything about the point raised; and that his Amendment would be thrown out in a way that would be typical of all legislation relating to Ireland. He would remind the Committee that the satisfactory working of legislation as a whole depended upon the proper working of its parts; and that, although the complaints brought forward by him might be sneered at by hon. Members as microscopic, the Government which was not fitted to endure microscopic examination was undeserving of support. He was almost inclined to hope that he should get no following into the Lobby, because that would be a result typical of the utter uselessness of bringing before the British Parliament complaints which it was never constituted to deal with.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 141: Majority 133.—(Div. List, No. 196.)
    MR. BIGGARreminded the Chief Secretary for Ireland of a Question which he had addressed to him on a former occasion with regard to the contracts for coals made by the Local Government Board; and suggested that if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to send down an Inspector to inquire into the circumstances complained of, he (Mr. Biggar) would not trouble the Committee with any further remarks upon the subject of the coal contracts. Failing that assurance, he would be obliged to take a Division with regard to this question.
    MR. J. LOWTHER,upon general grounds, thought it desirable to remove any suspicion which might exist concerning the contracts for coal, and would, therefore, promise that an Inspector

    1445
    should be sent down to inquire into the subject.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £23,007, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYregretted that he would be compelled to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £1,500, being the salary of the Chairman of the Board. The subject he was about to deal with was a large one; but he would endeavour to be as brief as possible in the remarks which he had to make. First of all, he would express his regret that the Forms of the House left no other course open to him than to treat this matter, to a certain extent, as a personal one. But he was bound also to state his honest belief that so long as the present Chairman of the Board of Works remained in office it would be impossible that the Department should be efficiently and satisfactorily administered. The Irish Board of Works had been the subject of discussion in the House of Commons for many years; and. owing to the great number of duties which it had to perform, nothing analogous to it existed in this country. Unlike the Board of Works in England, it acted as a body which advanced money for all kinds of works in Ireland; it discharged duties relating to Exchequer loans, and the planning and surveys of railways, as well as numerous other functions. It had also under its control an annual expenditure of no less than £200,000, and furniture of the value of £500,000. Without going into the history of the Department at any length, he would remind the Committee that the Board of Works had grown in a very extraordinary manner since it was first originated, in 1831. The Irish Parliament had been alive to the importance of improving the inland navigation of the country, and the English Government also took up the subject in 1831, and appointed a Board of Works with very large powers, consisting of three Commissioners and a staff to perform duties with regard to fisheries, and the very extensive public works then
    1446
    going on in Ireland. The Committee had heard of the Shannon Commissioners, a body that was perfectly separate and distinct from the Board of Works, and who, to some extent, had improved the inland navigation. Now, the Shannon Commissioners having reported that their works were nearly at an end, Parliament, in 1846, dissolved that body, and merged them into the Board of Works. That point was very important. One of the Shannon Commissioners was appointed a member of the Board of Works, and two Commissioners of the Board were appointed to see to the conservancy and maintenance of the Shannon. Everyone knew that there had been an enormous amount of trouble connected with the navigation of that river, which was constantly overflowing its banks and inundating large tracts of the adjacent country; and that the works to be executed by the Shannon Commissioners were laid down by Act of Parliament, after an expensive process of inquiry, by English and Irish engineers. But he asserted that those works were never carried out in the way directed by the Act; and that, in some instances, deviations were made of the most injudicious character. The greatest deviation, however, was that the works had never been completed. The Committee would recollect that every two or three years complaints had been made with regard to the state of the River Shannon; and that hon. Members who had to put them forward in the House could never get any satisfactory answers to these complaints, because of the impossibility of fixing any body with the responsibility for what had occurred. The Board of Works into which the Shannon Commissioners merged, in 1851, said truly—"We had nothing to do with the drainage of the Shannon; we are not responsible; and we will not give any information as to whether these works have been properly executed or not." The Shannon Commissioners, in the most adroit manner, evaded their responsibility by constantly making a separate Report, distinct from that of the Board of Works, although they had been dissolved by Act of Parliament. The fact was, that in all the complaints made to the House of Commons Parliament had had to do with a phantom Commission. Originally, the Board of Works consisted of five Commissioners, which.

    1447
    number at length, sunk down to three, the minimum according to the Act of Parliament. In 1864 the Chief Commissioner—Sir Richard Griffith—a very distinguished man, and who had recently died at the age of 90 years, retired from office; and whilst he was in retirement there remained only two Commissioners on the Board, a number insufficient to fulfil the requirements of the Act of Parliament. In order, however, to keep within the letter of the law, Sir Richard Griffith was made an honorary Commissioner; and since that time, whenever complaints had been made in the House of Commons as to the inability of the two Commissioners to discharge their duties, and as to there being no Board meetings, the answer of the Chief Secretary for Ireland had always been that—"The Board had the inestimable advantage of the opinion of Sir Richard Griffith, that distinguished man who knows everything, and takes an active part in the duties of the Board." Would the Committee believe that Sir Richard Griffith, although he had been vouched for by the Chief Secretaries for Ireland as taking an active part in these duties, had never, since the day of his retirement in 1864, entered the Office, and that he had never been asked a question, or in any way consulted by the Commissioners of the Board of Works? Of course, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) knew that the Chief Secretary for Ireland of the time thoroughly believed in the truth of his statements to the House in this respect; but the facts were elicited in evidence before the Committee of 1877, that Sir Richard Griffith had never entered the Office since the day of his retirement, and that he had never had one single point put before him. One of the consequences of this was that the Board of Works kept no minutes of its proceedings, for it was found out by the Committee that no minutes had been kept by the Board Secretary for nearly 14 years. When the Chairman of the Board of Works was asked about this, he said that he had never known of any minute book ever having been kept; while the cross-examination of the Secretary as to what had become of the minute book was of the most amusing description. The fact, however, was that, as long as the Board was properly constituted, minutes were kept by the Secretary, and duly signed by him and the Commissioners on the Board;
    1448
    but for some years after the retirement of Sir Richard Griffith they were kept very irregularly, being in some instances not signed at all. Since then the Board had never acted as a Board of Works; no minutes had been kept; and the Commissioners themselves were actually ignorant that there were any minute books. The Committee was familiar with the complaints made against the Board of Works two years ago, and with the fact that the Chief Secretary, who was himself very much dissatisfied with the state of affairs, had, in consequence of these complaints, promised that a Committee should be appointed to go thoroughly into the question of this administration. Accordingly, in 1877, a Departmental Committee was appointed by the Treasury, consisting of the noble Lord the Member for Enniskillen (Viscount Crichton), the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Kavanagh), the Hon. Charles Freemantle, Deputy Master of the Mint, Mr. Herbert Murray, Treasury Remembrancer in Ireland, and himself (Mr. Mitchell Henry). The Treasury also appointed, as Secretary to this Committee, Mr. W. E. Hamilton, with whose ability he believed every Member of the Committee was deeply impressed. It might, naturally, be supposed that he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had not entered on the proceedings of that Committee with a strong impression that much good would result from the inquiry; and owing to the official element in it being so large, he certainly did think that there would, be difficulty in making the investigation as thorough as he wished it to be. But he believed that never had there been a Committee composed of men more anxious to elicit truth than that Committee. The hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) had spoken, some little time ago, very slightingly of the labours of the Committee, and, amongst other things, had charged them with having wasted a good deal of public time; but, certainly, no such charge could be fairly brought, for the Committee sat for considerably less time than three weeks, day by day, and all day, The hon. Member was one of those who were most loud in their complaints against the Board, although he hinted at more than he stated concerning it; but when the Committee, as a first step, asked for the assistance of hon. Members

    1449
    who made complaints, they could get no answer at all from the hon. Member for Dundalk, who would not come forward. This circumstance was referred to in the Report of the Committee in the following terms:—
    "We should mention that we specially invited two Members of Parliament, who had taken a prominent part in those discussions last Session, to come forward to assist our inquiry; but one declined our offer, and the other took no notice of it."
    Therefore, he thought that no notice should be taken of what was stated by the hon. Member for Dundalk. The Report of the Committee was produced in June, 1878; and although they were now in July, 1879, nothing whatever had been done in this matter. Hon. Members had stimulated the Government by Questions, and they had been informed that the subject was coming on; but he was convinced that nothing would be done unless the House put some pressure upon the Government. This was not the first inquiry which had been held upon the Board of Works, for in 1871 the Government now out of Office appointed a Committee of Inquiry, at the head of which was Lord Lansdowne, and that Committee made a very important Report. But what became of that Report? That would be seen from the Report of the Committee, of which he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was a Member, which said—
    "In the course of our inquiries we had occasion to make frequent reference, as was contemplated in our instructions, to the Report made by Lord Lansdowne's Committee in 1872, and we must express our surprise at the way in which it was dealt with by the Chairman. Though your Lordship's instructions respecting it were communicated to the Board in a formal printed minute, which was made an official record, yet the Report itself, upon which the minute was framed, and without which it could hardly be properly understood, was retained by the Chairman as a confidential document. We found that the Report had never been communicated by him to the Assistant Commissioner, or any of the officers of the Department, and that, as regards the general administration of the Office, it has, for all practical purposes, remained a dead letter. We cannot think that this was the intention of your Lordships, or that the course taken by the Chairman has been conducive to public interests."
    That was the way in which the Report of Lord Lansdowne's Committee was dealt with. But the House had been further bamboozled over this Report; because when it became known that this
    1450
    important Committee had reported, Questions began to be asked about it in the House of Commons, and the Secretary to the Treasury, in answer to one of them, said—
    "That the Report examined a very wide field, and had been referred to a Committee, owing to a difference of opinion between the Chairman of the Committee and the Chairman of the Board.… but that the Treasury had now come to a decision on the subject, and it was on the point of being carried out."
    That recommendation had never been carried out at all; it had never even been communicated to the Colleagues of the Chairman; and it had never been communicated to the noble Lord in his Office; and it was found out, by the Committee of 1877, that the Report in question had been allowed to remain a dead letter, and, he must add, treated in a very contemptuous and improper manner, by being put into the pocket of the Chairman and allowed to remain without any notice whatever being taken of it. Under those circumstances, and in view of a great many other points which came before them, the Committee found it to be their duty to make a recommendation, which he was obliged to refer to at some length. When the Committee remembered of whom the Committee was composed, they would see that it was not at all likely that any direct recommendation would be made for the retirement of the Chairman of the Board of Works, unless under a sense of deep responsibility. The Committee, therefore, wrapped up the intimation as delicately as they could at the end of their Report in this way—
    "We hope that the recommendations already made will more effectually secure to the public the advantages intended by the Legislature; and that they will, in great measure, remedy the defects in the administration of the Board. At the same time, we feel that the Head of this important Department should possess unusual administrative abilities; that he should command your Lordships' entire confidence by a vigorous and comprehensive grasp of the subjects with which he is called upon to deal; and that he should be able, both in his recommendations to the Treasury and in his communications with the public, to enforce his views with authority. Nothing can be farther from our intention than to deprecate the merits of the present Chairman, or detract from the value of his long and (we may add) distinguished public services. Nothing can exceed the zeal with which he has applied himself to his work, or the conscientious industry which he has brought to bear upon it. It is possible, however, that after so long a period of service, rendered peculiarly arduous

    1451
    in consequence of the incomplete constitution of the Board, he may now feel unequal to the strain which our view of the responsibilities, if approved by your Lordships, would necessarily entail, so as to enable him to do full justice to himself, as well as to the Department; and, if so, while regretting that the Board should be deprived of the advantage of his great experience, we think that he should be afforded an opportunity of retiring, and that a special pension should be secured to him."
    Such was the delicate recommendation that the Chairman should quit office. This portion, however, of the Report was dissented from by the noble Lord the Member for Enniskillen (Viscount Crichton), who appended to the Report the following statement:—
    "I regret I am unable to concur in the recommendation contained in paragraph 324 above, which I cannot but regard as equivalent to an intimation that the retirement of the Chairman is desirable. While I have not hesitated, in the course of the Report, to join in the censure passed on the action of the Board in certain respects, and for which Colonel McKerlie, in his capacity as Chairman, must be regarded as responsible; still, on the whole of the evidence submitted to us, I cannot see sufficient grounds to warrant such a reflection upon his management of the business of the Board, and I should be glad to think that the advantage of his great experience and intimate acquaintance with the duties of the Office should be preserved to the Department in the future."
    The Treasury, in his opinion, should have taken into account the persons from whom this recommendation in favour of the retirement of the Chairman emanated; and he thought that the Treasury ought by that time to have read their evidence, and to have ascertained whether or not there existed good grounds for intimating to the Chairman that he should retire. For his own part, he was fully convinced, though he regretted to say it, that the Board could not be efficient if the present Chairman was not succeeded by some officer who would take a wider view of his duties. The present Chairman was precisely one of those men who ought not to be at the head of the Board of Works; he was a man who insisted upon the smallest letter, and the smallest minute, passing through his hands; in short, he insisted upon doing everything himself, and was, therefore, without that most essential power in public men of making use of other people. The greatest hardship, inconvenience, and cruelty had been inflicted upon individuals, and upon localities, in consequence of the physical and mental impossibility of the Chairman attend-
    1452
    ing to all the duties which he insisted upon performing. He could not understand why Her Majesty's Government had determined upon keeping things in their present state. They had not even appointed the three Commissioners required by the Act of Parliament, and the Board was, in consequence, at that moment absolutely illegal in its constitution. It was now necessary for him to give some example to show that the Committee were justified in their complaint. The inland navigation of Ireland cost £5,000,000, and the works were now almost useless, for two reasons. First, they had been very much superseded by railways; secondly, they were useless, because they were not connected with each other. Moreover, they had been imperfectly finished, and hardly one of them was in a fit condition for navigation. The Committee would see, by the instance he was about to refer to particularly, how the public money had been squandered in Ireland. The Ballinamore and Ballyconnell Canal passed between Lough Erne and the River Shannon. The works were undertaken, in conjunction with the arterial drainage of the district, under the Act of 1842. They were executed between 1846 and 1859, at a cost of £228,652, of which £198,652 formed a charge upon the public funds. Now, in 1860 the Board reported that this canal was complete, and handed it over, in the usual way, to trustees, who would have to maintain it, while the inhabitants would have to repay the amount of the loans expended thereon. The trustees, who were gentlemen in the district, after receiving the notice that the canal was complete, unfortunately took possession of it; and—this was the point—afterwards desired the county engineer to examine the works, and to report upon their condition. This Report had been duly forwarded to the Board of Works within a few weeks of the so-called completion of the works; but it was concealed by them, and was only ferreted out by the inquiry of the Committee of 1877. And this was what the Report said—
    "The absolutely useless condition of the canal, indeed, was only made clear in the Report of Mr. Pratt, the county surveyor of Leitrim and engineer to the trustees, immediately after the transfer had taken place. That Report was duly forwarded to the Board of Works; but the facts disclosed in it, which are tolerably conclusive, have never been made public till now.

    1453
    The Report shows that at the time the banks were giving way, and had been improperly sloped, which was causing a considerable deposit of mud—that the towing path had been badly made—that some of the locks had been so defectively constructed, that the masonry was forced out and the sides leaked—that the gearing and uprights of some of the sluices had worked loose; that the approaches to most of the bridges had subsided; that the lock houses were crumbling down; and that the articles of property handed over, such as dredges and barges, were old, rotten, and worn out."
    One member of the Board of Works, on behalf of the Government, had made a great deal of the fact that not only had they handed over the works, but also the dredges and barges to the trustees, and said that this was an act of great liberality. Innumerable complaints had been made to the trustees of this state of things; but the canal, to that day, remained simply a mass of mud and vegetable matter. He would now pass to another subject—namely, the Hind River drainage, which, after many complaints had been made to the Board of Works, was found to be perfectly useless. After tremendous pressure had been put upon the Government, an Inspector was directed to go down and examine this particular work. The Board of Works sent down their assistant engineer to see what was the cause of the obstruction, and he very promptly reported that the works had never been thoroughly executed; that there was a great quantity of back water; and that the Board of Works, having undertaken the work and received money for it, were bound to remedy the existing evils. On the return of this officer to Dublin, the Chairman, himself went down to look at the works, and, without taking any measurements, or doing anything but walking about, with his umbrella in his hand, made a counter Report, which left the evil without any redress at all. Subsequently, he might add, the Treasury interfered, and took some steps. Another important matter was with respect to an Act which had been passed, as was well known, with the object of providing for the erection of dwelling houses for the poor. What had been done with respect to that? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to direct his particular attention to the subject; because it had been found that lodging houses for the labouring classes in Ireland had not been erected, as had been expected. It
    1454
    had been found that the cause for that had been the action of the Board of Works, or, rather, of the Chairman of the Board, for that gentleman had refused to carry out the Act, because he did not approve of its policy. The reason which had been alleged by the Board for not interfering in that matter was that the applications made were not for a benevolent, but for a remunerative purpose. One man had expended a good deal of money for the erection of lodging houses, and when the Act was passed he asked for a loan from the Board, but it was refused; and it turned out that the only ground for refusing it was that the Board considered that the erection of these lodging houses would produce some profit to the builder. If the matter had been brought before any Board, such an absurd construction of the Act could not have been arrived at; but the Chairman took upon himself to construe the Act of Parliament exactly as he liked, and, in consequence, the Act had become nearly a dead letter. Numbers of cases equally as absurd, and equally cruel, and, in some respects, more ludicrous than the one to which he had drawn attention, had occurred. There was another matter to which he would allude—there was an architect connected with the Board of Works. What happened as regarded him? A loan was applied for to enable dwelling houses to be erected in Belfast; but the architect said that he knew Belfast very well, and that there were too many houses there already. He declined to examine the locality, and simply reported to the Chairman that no grant ought to be made for the erection of lodging houses in Belfast. Another point arose in connection with the architect—but he would not go into it if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would give some information as to whether anything had been done with regard to it—namely, the architect was the head of a building society. The architect held a most anomalous position in advising the Board as to grants of money for the erection of lodging houses, while, at the same time, he was connected with a large building society which granted money for the very same purposes. That was directly contrary to the instructions of the Treasury; and in the Report the Commissioners drew the

    1455
    attention of the Treasury to that fact. He thought that the Treasury ought to take some notice of it, and should take care that it did not occur again. These matters caused enormous irritation in Ireland; and he believed that they were the cause of half the discontent that existed in that country. He would not go further into these matters; but he would distinctly ask what the Government was going to do with the Board and with the Chairman, and whether the various recommendations of the Commissioners, for the better administration of the Board, were to be carried out? Would the Committee believe that the Board of Works had about £500,000 of furniture under its care, and that it had no inventory of it! Since the Report, it was said that something had been done; but he could not speak with certainty. He could not imagine any Board as negligent as the Board of Works in Ireland. In bringing forward the Motion they directly impugned the management of the Board of Works, and the conduct of the Chairman; and in asking the Government whether they insisted upon retaining the Chairman in his present office, with the experience that had been brought out in the Report, he might say that they were thoroughly convinced of the integrity and ability of the subordinate officers of the Department. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the salary of the Chairman.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £21,507, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
    COLONEL COLTHURSTwished to bring before the notice of the Committee one point in connection with that matter. He agreed with the general question brought forward by the hon. Member for Galway, and thought that, as the Board of Works was at present organized, nothing could be expected from it. That was abundantly proved by the evidence brought before the Committee. The point which he wished especially to urge upon the notice of the Treasury was a suggestion that had been made, to the effect that power should be granted to the Board of
    1456
    Works to enable it to make advances to the managers of industrial schools. Up to the close of 1876 over £160,000 had been expended by the managers of industrial schools in buildings. There were no powers in the Irish Act enabling grants to be made to those schools. Some powers had been given to the local bodies in England recently to make advances for furnishing and building those schools, and the school boards had also facilities for getting money from the Treasury, spreading the re-payment over a number of years. What he would ask the Government now to consider was the feasibility of extending to the managers of industrial schools in Ireland the power of obtaining loans from the Board of Works, and, in fact, granting them the facilities that were afforded by the Glebe Land Act. That would enable the Board of Works to make advances to the extent of two-thirds for the building of industrial schools. He would not press the Government for an answer on that occasion; but he wished the subject to be considered.
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, that for the last two or three years he had pressed the Government to permit loans to be made to these schools in Ireland. The proposal fell through, because the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, after consulting the Treasury authorities, stated that he had come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to do it, because they could not obtain proper security. Of course, if security could not be given, loans could not be expected. But there were many cases where very ample security could be given. In some cases 100 statute acres or more of land were possessed within three or four miles of a large town, and the value of that land for building purposes must be very great. There would be no difficulty, he felt sure, as to the security, if the Government would take the power to grant the loans. Of course, if people could not find security, they could not expect loans. But there were many cases where it could be found; and he thought it would be wise in those cases to grant money to be spent in works of so useful a character.
    MR. ERRINGTONsaid, that there was no Department of the Public Service in Ireland which was so much in want of proper organization as the Board

    1457
    of Works. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway had touched upon various points into which the Commission had inquired; but there was one point excluded from that inquiry. He did not think that anybody who had been upon the Committee alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member for County Cork (Colonel Colthurst) could help being struck by the remarkable evidence that was given on that subject. They were not inquiring into the efficiency of the Board of Works, but the question came before them indirectly. The carrying out of the Land Act was intrusted to the Board of Works; and it had been shown that the whole action of the Board in respect of it had been most destructive and most useless, and, in fact, of so detrimental a character that it was impossible to find Parliamentary language in which to express his opinion of it. It was shown that, although the Board of Works kept minute books, yet more than one Commissioner was never known to sit. Many curious things of that sort came out in respect to the Board. It seemed to him that the most serious charge which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Galway was, that since the Report of the Commission, the Government had done nothing to carry out its recommendations and reform the Board of Works. The object of the Commission was to ascertain and point out those abuses which existed; and unless some assurance were given that the recommendations of the Committee would be carried out upon a comprehensive scale, they could not be satisfied. He hoped that his hon. Friend would elicit some statement from the Government as to what was going to be done in the matter. They would not be satisfied merely with some small insignificant changes of detail, for a thorough re-constitution of the Department was required. He would ask the indulgence of the Committee to state, with reference to a Vote passed in the earlier part of the evening, when he was not in the House, that he should not have thought it his duty to vote for the Amendment, because the Government was willing to agree to the Queen's Colleges Estimates being taken at a later period.
    MR. P. MARTINthought that they were very much indebted to the hon. Member for Galway for the exhaustive
    1458
    speech in which he had brought that matter before the notice of the Committee. The Report to which he had drawn attention had been before the Government since June, 1878, and he regretted to say that not one single step had been taken to carry out the recommendations contained in it. He could understand it might be alleged that the difficulties which no doubt existed in determining the future organization and constitution of the Board of Works was an excuse for the singular inactivity on the part of the Government, so far as respected the re-constitution of the Department. But it had been very clearly shown that the action of the Commissioners had been much obstructed by the various Acts of Parliament which directed the operation of the Board and controlled its actions. Those Acts of Parliament were of a most complicated character, and many of them were contradictory; many had been long since repealed, and others substituted for them, and the Report had recommended that they should be consolidated. Those interested in the progress of Ireland not unjustly complained that not one single step had been taken since June, 1878, in respect to the consolidation or amendment of any of those Statutes. No Board more widely affected the welfare of Ireland than the Board of Works. The duties of the Board of Works concerned every part of Ireland; and it was incumbent upon the Government to make the law, by which the action of the Board was regulated and controlled, as plain and simple as possible. Was it not a matter in which they, as Irish Members, had cause to complain that, in consequence of the lethargy of Her Majesty's Government, they had been deprived of the benefit of the Drainage Acts in Ireland, inasmuch as they were wholly and entirely unworkable? If the Drainage Acts were properly worked a good deal might be effected in Ireland towards the reclamation of waste land, and very great good might be done for the people. The result of the inquiry instituted by the Commissioners named by the Government was made known so far back as June, 1878; yet since that time no step had been taken to carry out their recommendations. Was it wonderful, under those circumstances, that there should be the widespread demand in

    1459
    Ireland for Home Rule, when they found the English Parliament unable to grapple and deal with those matters which affected the welfare of Ireland? The suggestions which had been, referred to had been made by gentlemen appointed by the Government itself, and they were of importance to the farming classes, the landed classes, and to every rank of people in Ireland; but they had, nevertheless, been left wholly neglected. He trusted that the entire subject would engage the early attention of the Government; and that they would be prepared not only to give effect to the recommendations in the Report, but to submit some bolder and more comprehensive scheme, as had been so properly suggested to the House, early next Session.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the Government had been charged with neglecting to carry out the recommendations made by the Committee appointed a year ago. It was said that it was a scandal that the recommendations of the Committee should have been left uncared for, particularly when, if the Drainage Acts had been carried out, very great benefit might have resulted to Ireland in the present state of affairs. He hoped to be able to satisfy the Committee that the Government were not so much to blame as they had been represented. When the Report of the Committee came into his hands he need scarcely say that, although it was by no means a short document, he made it his duty to ascertain and to examine the recommendations which it embodied. With regard to the recommendations as to the consolidation of the Acts dealing with the administration of the Board of Works in Ireland, the Treasury at once instructed gentlemen competent to deal with the matter to prepare a codification of those Acts. Since that time, a codification had been in course of preparation; but numerous Statutes had to be gone into, and the labour of codification was very great, and could not be done at a moment's notice. So far as the work of codification was concerned, he hoped that the Government, before long, would be enabled to put before the House a complete and sound codification of those Acts. That, no doubt, was a very important item of the recommendations made by the Committee; but
    1460
    there were various smaller items, and to those attention had also been given. With regard to the case of the Galway Mills, an inquiry into the matter had not, at the present moment, been commenced; but a gentleman had been appointed for the purpose of making the inquiry, and would commence his labours in a short time. There was another point which had been dealt with in the recommendations, and which would also form the subject of the earnest consideration of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, as to the necessity for further inquiry, by Royal Commission, into the navigation system in Ireland. That Commission had been delayed in consequence of some further matters which his right hon. Friend wished to be inquired into. He thought he might fairly say that the Commission would be issued before very long. But, perhaps, the gravest charge that had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Galway was that the Government had done nothing to carry out the recommendations of the Committee with regard to the re-construction of the Board of Works. Although he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) quite admitted that, to anyone who had gone so thoroughly into the question as his hon. Friend, it might seem a very simple matter, yet the recommendations of the Committee appeared to the Government to embrace a very wide and difficult field. The questions raised extended not only to the Board of Works itself, but went into other subjects affecting the Local Government Board and other bodies in Ireland. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had postponed the matter with the view of himself making an inquiry into the whole system, and with a view of seeing whether a large part of the duties at present performed by the Public Works Office in Ireland might not be much more properly intrusted to the Local Government Board. The Public Works Office in Ireland performed a great many more duties than the corresponding Department in England. Many of those functions might, it was thought, be very properly transferred to the Local Government Board. Therefore, it was not desirable to make any alterations in the Board of Works until it was absolutely decided whether it should be retained in

    1461
    its present form. In his humble judgment, the time would have been lost in the settlement of the question by their not having dealt with the matter in a hurry. Under those circumstances, a new history in local government in Ireland might be created, and the local works in Ireland might be brought under the control of the Local Government Board. No doubt the Local Government Office would have to be strengthened, in order to enable it to carry out those additional duties; and the Board of Works would continue to look after buildings, furniture, and kindred details. The staff of the present Office of Works would be transferred to the Local Government Office, and in that way the scheme contemplated by his right hon. Friend would not involve greatly increased expenditure. That was the excuse which the Government offered for not having as yet interfered to carry out that particular recommendation of the Committee. There was one other question which the hon. Gentleman the Member for County Galway approached at great length, and he hoped that he would pardon him if he stated that he could not agree with his opinions. The hon. Member had pointed to the Chairman of the Board of Works, and to the Report of the Committee upon him. The recommendations of the Committee were certainly made in very discreet and courteous language; but those recommendations pointed to nothing less than the retirement of Colonel McKerlie. He would point out that Colonel McKerlie was an officer who had done very great public service, and was a most indefatigable and most energetic functionary. Numerous Acts of Parliament which had been beneficial to Ireland in their results had their origin in his suggestions. After the most careful consideration of the evidence adduced before the Committee and of their Report, he could not help thinking that the suggestion with regard to Colonel McKerlie's retirement was made under a misapprehension of the facts. Colonel McKerlie was placed in a position of great difficulty, from the Board which he was supposed to superintend having been, practically, destroyed. Additional duties had been imposed upon the Board of Works, and therefore upon him, and they had accumulated to an extent which made it utterly im-
    1462
    possible for him efficiently to carry them all out. Many of the complaints as to the administration of the Office of Works in Ireland he attributed really to that fact. The Commissioners were originally five in number; two of those Commissioners very shortly left the Office, one dying, and another being appointed to another office. The Treasury of the day on each occasion of a vacancy refused to allow it to be filled. Another Commissioner, on his retirement, was asked to continue an ornamental member only; he did so, but, of course, he took no active part in the work of the Board. The Treasury had at length appointed an Assistant Commissioner; arid for some time two Commissioners had done the whole work of the Board. But the work of the Board had increased so enormously within the last two years, that it would be impossible even for the two Commissioners to do the work properly. The whole blame had been thrown by the Committee upon the unfortunate Chairman; but it was his opinion that that gentleman had always endeavoured to carry out his duties to the best of his ability, and that there was no real cause of complaint against him. He confessed that, looking to the past history of the Board, and looking to the way in which the work had been carried out during the whole time of his appointment, he should be somewhat inclined to agree with his hon. Friend that the Chairman had been anxious to do everything himself, and not to allow any other man to assist him; but he thought that arose from having no one to assist him, and that he had really undertaken what no man could be expected to carry out. If the proposed alteration with respect to the functions of the Board were carried, he ventured to think that Colonel McKerlie would be thoroughly competent to discharge the duties of his office. He trusted that the Committee would not endorse the recommendations of the Report with regard to the Chairman of the Board. He ventured to think that what he had submitted to the Committee was a justification for the postponement, by the Government, of any action in respect to the recommendations of the Committee, and that it would be seen that those recommendations had not been neglected, and that the Government were taking steps to carry them out.
    MAJOR NOLANwished to ask a very simple question about the system of issuing loans in Ireland for public works. The system, up to the present, had been where the loans were for arterial drainage, and other purposes of that kind, to pay them off by means of annual instalments which exceeded the interest by about ½ to 1 per cent. That system had been found to work very well; and he wished to know whether there had been any reports protesting against that system? because he found that a Bill was before the House which proposed to abolish that system. He believed the Irish people were very strongly in favour of its continuation, for it worked very well, and its abolition would stop a great number of works altogether. He would like to know whether this was only an idea of the Treasury, and on what grounds the change was based?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, there had been no such reports as those suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman from the Office in Ireland, and in the Bill before the House there was no intention of altering the way in which these loans were made. The clause of the Bill affected another class of loans altogether. As to the question of loans for industrial schools, which had been touched by one or two hon. Members, he could quite understand there would be considerable advantage in the alteration of the law, and that it would be an encouragement of purposes he had always been anxious to assist. He would look into the case to see if any alterations could be made which would give such facilities as had been suggested.
    MR. SHAWremarked that there was a little matter of administration which he had once before brought to the notice of the Financial Secretary. In the case of third-class clerks, referred to on page 66, owing to the promotion of the second-class clerks, their prospects of promotion had been entirely stopped. It had been recommended by a Committee that they should be put into the second-class; but though that recommendation had been a very long time before the Treasury it had not been acted upon, and these men had no chance of getting promoted, and might go on as they were until the Office was re-organized. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would carry out
    1464
    the recommendation of the Commissioners at once. The change would cost a very small sum of money; and as the right hon. Gentleman, whenever he did make any changes, could not help doing this, he might as well do it at once. He should wish, also, to ask whether he had considered how the proposed enlargement of the lending powers connected with the "Bright Clauses" of the Land Act could be carried out? At a comparatively early period of the Session he promised to consider the whole matter before the end of the Session, and bring forward some suggestion to enable these loans to be more easily made; but up to the present time they had heard nothing of the question. He was sure that the extensive applications for money to the Board of Works were hindered very much by the red-tapeism of the Office. He knew in his own county that farmers borrowed money at 6 per cent rather than try and get it from the Board of Works at 4 per cent. He did everything in his power to induce them to be more careful of their own interests; but their reply was that it was so roundabout a process and so many returns were wanted, and they only got a small amount of what they applied for, and therefore they preferred to get the money even if they had to pay 2 per cent more for it. There had been a great deal of talk about the re-construction of this Board, and the sooner the Government brought in a small Bill to carry it out the better, for it was the cause of much difficulty and obstruction in Ireland. He hoped, however, before they carried out any extensive changes, either in destroying Departments or amalgamating Departments, they would put their plans before the House, and allow them to be discussed. He did not wish to say anything against the Board; but he had a very simple piece of business to do with them once. He had some property leased from them, and he wanted to give facilities to the fishermen at Howth to get their provisions there, which would have saved them a good deal of time and money. After a great deal of correspondence, however, he was told that the Board could not assent to it, because there was something in the lease against it, although the alteration would have kept the men out of the public-houses, and would have saved

    1465
    their money. Happening to be in Dublin, he went in to see the Board. He heard what they had to say, and then he put on his hat and went out, determined that he would say no more, for that to talk to them about the matter was perfectly useless. They did not want in Ireland another Board like that. They wanted to bring public opinion to bear on its action, and to mix up with the paid officers men who would be representatives of public opinion. There was no reason why the County Boards or the Poor Law Unions should not elect representatives yearly to go to Dublin and examine the claims of cases which might come before them, as to which they would be guided and assisted in deciding by the officials in matters of scientific knowledge. He did object, however, and he always should object, to pay two or three engineers, shovelling them into a room, and there leaving them to administer the affairs of the county of lending money for public health and building artizans' dwellings, and so on, without anybody overhauling them. He hoped some attention would be given, and some desirable alterations made.
    MR. BRUEN,after the observations of the hon. Member, thought it right to say that he had had some experience of this Board, having had communication with it for several years, and he was bound to say his experience of the Office and its working was diametrically opposite. He had frequently gone there, and he had always received the most business-like information on all matters; and, as far as his own experience went, he had no single complaint to make. Though he had not always been successful in his applications, when he had failed, good, fair, and plausible reasons had been advanced why he should not succeed. He was aware that to say the Board had been business-like in one case was not a sufficient answer to another case where they had not been; but he might say, also, that many of his friends who had had business transactions with the Board had had the same experience. He had never heard any complaint.
    MR. PARNELLthought the Government should give some answer to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for County Cork (Mr. Shaw) as to whether they intended to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee, which, seemed very valuable recommen-
    1466
    dations for increasing the facilities for carrying out the "Bright Clauses" of the Land Act. This matter had acquired considerable importance lately, owing to the great agricultural distress existing at the present moment in Ireland. Those clauses authorized the Board of Works to advance two-thirds of the purchase money to the tenants of estates which came into the Landed Estates Court, but they were also clauses which prevented alienation without the consent of the Board. The effect had been to prevent a second charge being placed on the property coming after the charge of the Board of Works; and the result was that when estates came into the Court, half the tenants had made arrangements with the Board of Works for an advance of two-thirds of the purchase money. They were forbidden to make arrangements with any other lender to make an advance of the remaining part. He could not imagine any reason for that. The Board of Works, as owners of the first charge, would not be prejudiced by a second charge; and if the tenants could get banks or other people to lend them money as a second charge, the result would surely be that the Board of Works would have a better security, and, so far from their being injured, the value of their security ought to be increased by this fact. But the result of the clause was that the tenants were not able to borrow money; and, as a consequence, they had not sufficient capital to start their farms, and so forth. The difficulty might be got over very easily. The Act allowed the Board to sanction a loan if it thought fit; but, at present, the Board always opposed it. He had even known instances where landlords had been willing to let the third stand out as a second charge, and to collect the interest from the tenants; but the Board of Works refused their permission, and the consequence was that the matter had to be done in a roundabout way, and the tenants were obliged to give bills, and so on. This was all a very vicious principle; and the Chief Secretary surely might give directions to the Board of Works in future not to oppose the placing of the second charge on estates. The recommendations of the Select Committee went further than that, and wished to make it imperative on the Board of Works to do away with the

    1467
    alienation sections of the Land Act altogether. He merely wished that the Board of Works should get some sort of general direction from the Government that when a tenant was able to provide the money from other sources to make up the remaining one-third of the purchase money, that the lender should be allowed to have a separate charge on the property coming after the Board of Works. He could not understand what possible objection there could be to that; and it was a matter upon which they ought to have some definite answer, for, at the present time, there were a number of estates waiting to be sold and nobody ready to buy them. He was told the other day, by the manager of one of the largest banks in Dublin, that they had a number of properties in Ireland to sell, and were unable to find purchasers for them. If this went on they would have properties knocked down for a mere song—for 10 or 12 years' purchase. Surely this was a very favourable opportunity for the Government to increase the facilities for becoming proprietors of their homes. There was a great deal of money in Ireland at the present time which could find no employment; and if the Board would only allow bankers, who were willing to advance the remaining one-third, to take a second charge they would have a very large number of properties sold to tenants at prices which would be remunerative to the landlords and advantageous to the tenants. They would then be giving, for the first time, a fair trial to the "Bright Clauses." If, however, the Irish Government retained their obstructive attitude the result would be that they would have a number of properties sold, as was the case in the years of the Famine, for 10 or 12 years' purchase. They would have the owners of these properties ruined, and they would have mortgagees leasing their charges, and they would have the introduction of a class of land-jobbers who had no interest in the well-being of the people, whose simple desire was to abstract the highest rate of interest. These men even were not satisfied with 10 or 12 per cent, but would insist on getting 20 and 25. Numerous instances were known, after the Famine, of men buying land at that rate, and yet not being satisfied. In the present aspect of affairs in Ireland they certainly ought to have attention paid by Government to
    1468
    this important matter. If it was too late to introduce a short Act to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee, it was not too late to put a liberal interpretation on the original "Bright Clauses," and to give such interests to the Board of Works, and to insure a liberal interpretation of those clauses.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould promise that, as far as the Treasury was concerned, everything that lay in their power would be done, by instructions to the Board of Works, to soften down the provisions of the clauses with a view to avoiding, if possible, the distress and difficulties mentioned by the hon. Member for Meath. He would certainly look into the matter with the object of carrying out some alterations in the present system, so far as it could be done, without further legislation; but he was afraid, if the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last were accepted, that legislation would be required that could not be given that Session. With regard to the clerks, the recommendations made by the Treasury had led to some delay, which he regretted; but the matter should be looked into with a view to another arrangement.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the Government ought to be the last to insist that land should remain in the hands of persons who had shown themselves to be unable to manage it properly, and that, therefore, doubt existed as to whether the alienation clauses ought to be retained. There was one Department under the Board of Works which had been the cause of a good deal of evil throughout the country. He alluded to the system of drainage which they were carrying out in Ireland. He was not now going into the whole case, but wished to lay before the Committee a state of things which showed that the Board had utterly failed to carry out a proper system of drainage. In the county of Limerick there was a river which flooded the adjacent lands, and since the drainage works were completed the lands had been flooded worse than ever. A tenant who held, originally, 71 acres, had 48 acres affected. To his rent, which was £128, there had been added a sum of £48 for drainage works, and, in return, he had the whole of his land flooded. In another case, out of

    1469
    70 acres, 50 were flooded, and the man had to pay £65, in addition to his rent, for the damage sustained at the hands of the Board of Works. Another person who held 180 acres had to pay £129 a-year for the damage, or 75 per cent on his rental. The defence made for the Board of Works by the Secretary to the Treasury was that the Chairman of the Board erred through superabundant activity and extreme anxiety to do his duty; in short, that he had tried to do too much. He (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) believed that the Chairman had done his best, and more than it was prudent for him to attempt. But this showed the very thing they complained of, that, through the absence of any responsibility, and an excess of activity or neglect, a man might turn out a very dangerous officer. There was another fault in the management of the Board of Works which, when the whole scheme came to be considered, he trusted would receive attention. The Treasury was largely represented in Dublin by a body of persons; but when the works throughout the country were looked at, it would be seen that there was no proper supervision at all; and that, although the Department in Dublin was, so to speak, well-manned, it was not well-manned by engineers and supervisors, who ought to see that the money expended was properly laid out and the works properly executed. He regretted very much not to have heard one word said on the subject raised by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) with reference to proper Parliamentary control over the Board. However much the interior of the Office might be revised, it would be sure to glide back into the old system of superabundant activity, or of no activity at all, unless a representative of the Department sat in the House of Commons, who should be responsible for the details of the working of the Board. It now turned out that a great many duties of the Board were to be handed over to the Local Government Board; and there could be no greater proof of the affinity and relationship which existed between the two Boards than that of their duties being interchangeable. Surely, there could be no difficulty in appointing a person as Irish Lord of the Treasury in the House to be the representative of these two Boards, and to secure that these two great centres
    1470
    of administration should be conducted with due respect and due obedience to the wishes of Irish Members.
    MR. SYNANheld that it was impossible that there could he any supervision of the Board of Works without representation in that House. It was absurd to tell him that the Chief Secretary could do as much by letter as he could by communication with a responsible Minister in the House of Commons. What had been said with reference to the drainage had taken him entirely by surprise. It was totally incomprehensible to him that the Board of Works, either directly or indirectly, by approving the works executed, should tax the tenants to one-third of their rents, and leave the works in the same condition as they were before. If the works were not properly executed they ought not to have charged the tenants with the interest on the drainage money, but should have looked to the Local Board, and considered the question as to whether the engineer employed had done his duty. He apprehended that the answer which the Government would get would be that the Local Board was responsible, and not the Board of Works, because the former ought not to have approved the works unless they were efficient. He thought the Government ought to send down an engineer at once to ascertain whether the works had been properly executed or not. Whether any relief would be given to the tenants he knew not; but he thought that the Treasury should do everything in its power to relieve them from an amount of debt which it was impossible for them to discharge. It was clear that the additional charge for drainage, added to the rents, which were about £2 10 s. or £3 an acre, would raise the rent of the tenants to something over £4 an acre, a rate that meant ruin and bankruptcy. He called upon the Treasury to look to this, and to demand from the Board of Works how it was that they had neglected their duty, and how it was that they attempted to shift their responsibility to any Local Board? He held that the Treasury ought not to be satisfied with that excuse, and that they should do everything possible to relieve the tenants from the injustice to which they were subjected.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the Memorial from Limerick,

    1471
    referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), had only reached him on the 24th instant. Immediately it came to his notice he had sent it forward for the purposes of inquiry; but as they were now only at the 28th of the month, sufficient time had hardly elapsed for an answer to be returned.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYdid not propose to divide the Committee upon his Motion, seeing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to have the matter looked into, and that sufficient time had not been given for so large an inquiry.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (6.) £4,425, to complete the sum for the Record Office, Ireland, agreed to.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (7.) £65,521, to complete the sum for Law Charges, Ireland.
    MAJOR NOLANpointed out that a great many jurors in Ireland had to travel long distances—in some cases as much as 75 miles—to the places where their services were required, and that they neither received payment for their travelling expenses, nor compensation for the loss of their time. Amongst these persons a strong feeling existed that they ought, at least, to be paid for their expenses out of pocket, and many also thought that their time should be paid for. Complaints also were made that the system of arranging the juries was not good, and that a larger number of jurors than necessary was brought from long distances to Quarter Sessions. He had looked into the arrangements, and found, for instance, that the people of Ballinamore had to travel 80 miles by rail and then 60 miles by road up to Galway, and this continually occurred from the coupling of two Sessions together. The alternate Sessions were badly arranged in some of the counties in Ireland, and the districts from which jurors were drawn urgently required re-arrangement. This question, which affected a large class of persons in Ireland, had also an important bearing upon the proper administration of the law, and for this reason he desired to know whether the Government intended, this Session or next, to do anything to
    1472
    help the jurors in respect of their expenses and loss of time, and whether they proposed any re-arrangements of the jury districts, especially in connection with Quarter Sessions?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)was aware that it was extremely hard upon people to be called upon to leave their homes and business and devote their time to the public service without compensation; but until some change was made in the law, with the sanction of the whole country, it would be impossible to introduce a Bill to deal with this subject in Ireland. Moreover, the system of payment had been tried in England, and had not been found to work. The question was, undoubtedly, an important one; but it would be raised with more propriety when it became necessary to present a new Jury Bill to the House.
    MR. CALLANcomplained that no more information was given in the Abstract with regard to prosecutions than was to be found in the Vote itself, and that no information was given as to the expenditure of the sum of £27,000 for that purpose in the various counties of Ireland. The Committee were, therefore, unable to discuss the Vote on its merits. He held that the Committee should know the amount expended in each county and at each Assizes, and not have the whole placed before it in a lump sum. He had now some remarks to make with regard to the salaries of the Law Officers of the Crown. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that they had given power of appeal from the Grand Jury to the Privy Council, and that last year a Bill was promoted to make a steam tramway from Kilrush to the Giant's Causeway. This year a much more important Tramway Bill came before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on an appeal from the Grand Jury of the county of Wicklow. With reference to that case, he now asked the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention had been called to those proceedings before the Privy Council on Monday, the 21st of July, and to the statement made by the Lord Chief Baron concerning the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland; whether the Baltinglass Tramway scheme was dismissed with costs, on the ground that the proposed plan for laying rails was in contravention of the Act of Par-

    1473
    liament; and whether it was true that the Kilrush and Giant's Causeway steam tramway was sanctioned on lines precisely similar to the Baltinglass Scheme, which the Lord Chief Baron declared would be illegal?
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Member for Dundalk that he was, of course, within his right in referring to anything in connection with the duties of the Law Officers of the Crown for which they were paid under the present Vote, but that, in discussing the merits of a particular tramway scheme, he would not be in Order.
    MR. CALLANwas aware that he was perfectly in Order in what he said with reference to the manner in which the Law Officers of the Crown performed their duties. He was perfectly within his rights, which he insisted upon maintaining, in discussing that question under the present Vote. He should like to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether Lord Chief Baron Palles had not expressed himself as being very much surprised that the Law Officers of the Crown could have signed such an Order, which, in the opinion of that learned Judge, as well as of the Irish Vice Chancellor, was clearly illegal? He should also like to have some information as to who was the person responsible for the illegality?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, he would at once frankly admit that the circumstances of the case were such as the hon. Member had described them to be, and would tell the Committee, as far as he was able, how the matter stood. His attention had not been directly called to it until that evening; but he was in the habit of reading all the Irish papers, and he noticed, amongst other things, the remarks of the Lord Chief Baron to which the hon. Member referred. He at once, after reading them, wrote over to Ireland to ask for information on the subject; and he had received some information, but not all that was required, to elucidate the points which he wished to have explained. He was not, he might add, disposed to admit that the Law Officers of the Crown had done wrong until he had fuller knowledge of the details of the case than he at present possessed. He hoped to have the necessary information in the course of
    1474
    three or four days; and if the hon. Member would, at the end of that time, repeat his question, he would be better prepared to answer it. He might, perhaps, state, before sitting down, that the Lord Chief Baron, than whom there was no more able Judge on the Irish Bench, had not the Order before him when he made the remarks which the hon. Member had brought under the notice of the Committee; and although he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had had the Order before him, he was not exactly in a position to state whether it -was absolutely identical with that of which complaint was made. But, so far as the public convenience was concerned, he was not aware that any injury whatever had been done in the matter.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had referred to the matter, not with the view of offering any opposition to the Vote, but because he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to avail himself of the opportunity, which the discussion of the Vote afforded, to give a fuller reply to his question than, under ordinary circumstances, the Rules of the House would admit of his doing. He would repeat his question on some future day, when it might be more convenient to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer it.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was not satisfied with the assurances which he had received from either the Attorney General or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with respect to the complaints to which he had drawn their attention in connection with the way in which the fishery regulations were carried out on the coast of Dungarvan. A great rivalry existed between the fishermen of the town and those who resided in the neighbouring villages, by whom the fishery regulations were neglected in leaving their nets out night and day in the manner in which they did. He was informed that the proper authority to prosecute for such a breach of the regulations was the the local Coastguard; but it so happened that the Coastguard men had their station in the immediate vicinity of the locality in which the failure to comply with the regulations had occurred, and the result was that the Dungarvan Bay fishery had been almost destroyed, owing to the wholesale neglect to obey the law. He did not wish to press severely on the Coastguard in the

    1475
    matter, because they were not unnaturally influenced by a feeling of kindness towards their neighbours, and looked upon the rights of the Dungarvan fishermen as being of secondary importance. But the question was a very serious one for those poor men. Some time ago, the fleet of fishing boats belonging to the town numbered 150, and something like £1,000 was earned per week. There was now, however, only a wretched fleet of 20 boats, and the fishermen were reduced to a state of the greatest destitution. Now, if the law were only fairly carried out, that condition of affairs would, he believed, steadily improve. He would not press the matter further on the attention of the Committee on the present occasion, for he was sure the Government would see the necessity of taking some steps to provide that the fishery regulations should be properly enforced.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, he would communicate with the Inspector of Fisheries in Ireland on the subject.
    MAJOR NOLANwished to call the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to another point connected with the Irish jury system—he meant the inconvenience which was caused by summoning jurors to serve at considerable distances from the localities in which they reside without any necessity. In his own county very considerable inconvenience was the result of the present system. The town of Tuam was situated about 25 English miles from Galway. and the town of Ballymore was 20 miles from Tuam, and 45 miles from Galway. Now, it was scarcely reasonable, he thought, that jurors should be summoned from Ballymore to attend the Sessions, both at Tuam and Galway. Where the districts were very large some arrangement ought, in his opinion, to be made, providing that the jurors only of the district in which the Sessions were held should be summoned; and if that were done, in the case of the County of Galway, the jurors residing in Ballymoe would not have to go beyond Tuam. In Ireland, he might add, jurors were generally summoned by the relieving officer, who was not the sort of person who would be anxious to secure a good jury, and who was not placed directly in communication with those whose object it was to do so. But the whole
    1476
    jury system in Ireland required to be thoroughly looked into; and, meantime, matters might be materially improved if some such alteration respecting the summoning of jurors, such as that which he had just suggested, were made.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that in 1876, when the present Secretary of State for the Colonies was Chief Secretary for Ireland, an arrangement had been made for the drawing up of a general list of jurors to be summoned to Quarter Sessions. That arrangement had, however, been found to work inconveniently, and a change had since been introduced, enabling the Chairman of Quarter Sessions or the County Court Judge to define the area from which a jury should be summoned, which, he believed, had been found more satisfactory. He would, however, look into the matter, and see whether something could not be done to remedy the inconvenience of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman complained.
    MAJOR NOLANremarked, that the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions were not always the best persons to adjust geographical details, and expressed a hope that the matter would not be lost sight of by the Government, inasmuch as a great deal of time and trouble would, he thought, be saved if some alteration, such as that which which he had indicated, was adopted.
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, that much of the difficulty connected with the working of the present system of summoning jurors in Ireland arose from the fact that the relieving officers, who controlled the preparation of the jury lists, had no object in securing the attendance of good juries.
    Vote agreed to.
    (8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding£20,677, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund; including provision for certain Officers of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, and for the Trial of Election Petitions."
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought the Vote should not be allowed to pass

    1477
    without a protest against the mode in which Election Petitions were now tried. Having no wish to cast undue reflections on individuals, he yet felt that he was not mistaking or exaggerating the state of public feeling in Ireland, when he said that the Irish people were profoundly distrustful of the trial of those Petitions by single Judges. It was said 'that the Judges in Ireland were notorious for their freedom from bias, and their action in civil and criminal trials was pointed to as a reason why they should be trusted to try Election Petitions. There was, however, he ventured to think, no force in that argument, because the political partiality which was attributed to the Irish Judges had very seldom occasion to rouse itself in civil and criminal trials, which turned usually upon questions of fact, which had rarely, if ever, anything to do with politics. To contend, therefore, that a man must show perfect impartiality in a political trial, because he did so in trials of a non-political character, was to argue quite beside the real point at issue. As a matter of fact, some Judges in Ireland who were believed to be the most incapable of controlling themselves on political trials—such as the trial of Election Petitions—were most favourably known for their admirable administration of the law in civil and criminal cases. At all events, entertaining the views on the subject which he did, he could not allow the item of £220, contained in the Vote for expenses connected with the trial of Election Petitions, to pass without comment, and without offering to it his strenuous opposition. But apart from the general question, and taking into account the fact that no Election Petitions had been tried in Ireland last year, he could not see on what ground a sum of £140 was asked for in the Vote for the reception of Judges in connection with those trials. If there were no trials, there could not, he supposed, have been any Judges to receive, and how the £140 was to be expended he could not, therefore, understand. But setting aside all microscopical criticism, he must say that he had the strongest possible objection to having Election Petitions tried by single Judges; and, if only for the purpose of impressing on the Government his conviction that if, in making any attempt to amend the law on the subject, the decision of
    1478
    Election Petitions were still left in the hands of a single Judge, they would provoke the most profound dissatisfaction in Ireland, he would certainly take a Division against the item of £220 which he had just mentioned. It was very easy to prove that the Irish Judges were political partizans—the proofs were abundant. There were, in Ireland, several highly respected Judges—men who, when discharging the functions of their office, outside of politics, were admirable Judges; but who, when they came to deal with burning questions—such as the law relating to the land—all at once revealed themselves straight out, sometimes in their addresses to the Grand Jury, as political partizans, undisguised and undisguise-able. How was it possible, then, that when they came to try an Election Petition they could divest themselves of their political feelings? He was arguing against the voting of public money for those trials. In Ireland, in an especial manner, appointments to the Judicial Bench were made for political reasons; although he was glad to see that, in that respect, there had of late been an improvement, which would, he hoped, be carried still further. It was still true, however, that the prizes of the Irish Bench were made the reward of political services rendered by political lawyers; and it was perfectly impossible to persuade any constituency in that country that a distinguished lawyer, who had attained to the ermine by his brilliant defence of this or that political personage, could forget all the circumstances of his life when he was called upon to preside at a trial in which the interests of a member of the political Party with which he had always been intimately associated were involved. Those were general objections to the present system of trying Election Petitions with a single Judge. But there were several objections. The Committee knew that a judgment delivered by the late Judge Keogh, in the case of the Galway Election, when he unseated the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) and gave the seat to his opponent, had provoked the widest dissatisfaction in Ireland. They also knew that at the very next election the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who had been rejected by the Judge, had been placed at the head of the poll, and that

    1479
    his opponent, whom the Judge had made a Member of that House, did not dare, on that second occasion, to show his face to the electors. In a word, the overwhelming verdict of the constituency scattered to the four winds of Heaven the judgment of the learned Judge. In his own case, at Galway, Mr. Justice Lawson had unseated him, on the ground that ho had been illegally elected. What was the consequence? That his dear bosom Friend and College companion (Dr. Ward), the present Member for Galway, was elected in his place, not only because of his own high personal qualities, but as a protest against Mr. Justice Lawson's judgment; and so completely was that judgment rejected, that the other candidate, Mr. Joyce, did not venture to oppose Dr. Ward when he came forward in his (Mr. O'Donnell's) place. In Ireland, not one man in ten could be found who would say that the judgments either of the late Justice Keogh or of Justice Lawson were to be relied upon in those cases. Those Judges had acted and spoken as partizans; and had the Bill of the Government relating to Corrupt Practices at Elections been proceeded with, he should have felt it to have been his duty to bring all the circumstances connected with Mr. Justice Lawson's judgment under the notice of the House. If the Government persisted in their intention to intrust the trial of Election Petitions in Ireland to a single Judge, and thus continue to the Judges the power of quashing the votes of whole constituencies, he should certainly go carefully into that judgment, by which he was personally disqualified from seeking re-election, for reasons which nobody could understand; while, as he had said, his bosom Friend was elected, and that only three weeks after the judgment was delivered. In Ireland the Judges owed their ermine to partizanship, and they could not divest themselves, in the class of cases of which he was speaking, of their political feelings. The late Justice Keogh was an excellent Judge in that department of his office in which he acted properly as a Judge; while Mr. Justice Lawson was also an admirable Judge in the discharge of his ordinary duties. But neither Mr. Justice Lawson, nor a dozen other Judges whom he could name, could have any portion of the trust of the Irish people where
    1480
    the trial of Election Petitions was concerned. He would take, then, a Division on the important item to which he had called the attention of the Committee, in order that that Division might serve as an instruction and a warning to the Government—he did not wish to use the words in any offensive way—that if they proposed to continue the power of a single Judge in Ireland to over-ride the decisions of the constituencies, such a proposal would be received by the majority of the Irish Members as one which it would be their duty strongly to resist. He felt perfectly satisfied that it entirely depended on a Judge who tried an Election Petition in Ireland whether a Member who had been elected by a constituency was unseated or not; and he need scarcely say that to expose a Judge to the unnecessary odium which such a state of things implied was a result which ought to be avoided by any wise Government. In the interest of the Judges, as well as of the constituencies, it was quite impossible that so informal a power in the hands of a single Judge could long be maintained. It ought not, in his opinion, to be maintained in England or Scotland; but the objections to it applied with ten-fold force in the case of Ireland. If English and Scotch Members were willing to subject themselves to the uncontrolled dictum of a Judge, they could, of course, do so; but Irish constituencies were entirely opposed to anything of the kind. They had as fairly high an opinion of the character of their Judges as any other people; but they knew that it was idle to expect any one to be exactly supernatural, and that it was ridiculous to suppose that a political partizan could cease to be a partizan on a political trial directly appealing to partizan instincts, although he might be, in the main, a perfectly upright Judge. The cases of the county of Galway and the borough of Galway judgments were cases in point. They were judgments delivered by partizan Judges—he did not use the word in any unnecessarily offensive sense—which inflicted very severe loss on the individuals concerned, but which was indignantly scouted by the constituencies which they affected, and which resulted in injuring the authority and the character of the Judicial Bench. He hoped, therefore, the Government would take the necessary steps

    1481
    to remove the Irish Judges from the chances of so much odium, and would give the Committee some assurance that a system which worked so disastrously, and in which, practically, no one in Ireland had any confidence, would not be continued. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £220, the sum asked for to defray the expenses of the trials of Election Petitions by single Judges in Ireland.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £20,457, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Queen's Bench, Common. Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund; including provision for certain Officers of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, and for the Trial of Election Petitions."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, every Member of the Committee must be aware of the great amount of attention which had been given to the question raised in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, during the last four or five years. More than one Committee of the House had made recommendations on the subject; and a Bill dealing with it was, at the present moment, under consideration, some portion of which, at all events, he hoped would, before long, become law. That Bill would deal with a good many of the topics which had been brought under the notice of the Committees to which he had referred, and would, perhaps, to a large extent, meet the views of many hon. Members. He wished, however, to point out, in reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), that it was impossible that the Judges of any country should not have some kind of political complexion; and so long as Irishmen were Irishmen they would, he supposed, continue to take a somewhat active view of the leading political questions of the day. But, be that as it might, his own experience of the Judges in Ireland was that while they were exceptionally able men, as compared with the Judges of other countries, they were, at the same time, men of singular fairness of mind. There
    1482
    were many of them from whom he differed in politics; but if any question involving his character or property was about to be tried, he should be quite satisfied to have it tried by any one of them, quite regardless of the political opinions which he might entertain. It was impossible, he might add, that the decisions of Judges by whom Election Petitions were tried could give satisfaction to everybody. On one side there must always be, not only disappointment, but keen disappointment; and when a decision came to be delivered in the very town in which the election had taken place, and where great warmth of feeling must prevail, it was quite obvious that the interest in the proceedings of the trial must be not only keen but excited. No doubt, that was so in the case in which the hon. Member for Dungarvan himself was concerned. Having said thus much, he might be allowed further to observe that there was a Bill before the House which would, he thought, deal, in a reasonable and satisfactory way, in many respects with the trial of Election Petitions, especially in the matter of appeals. Under the Judicature Act, at present, the trial of such Petitions was committed to three Judges, who were placed on the rota, whose selection, he believed, commanded confidence, for it could not fairly be contended, that there was anything like undue selection. There was to be a further provision, that the junior Judge of the Queen's Bench—that position being at present occupied by Mr. Justice Barry—should be under the necessity of going into the Common Pleas for the purpose of deciding on appeals; and he could not conceive any tribunal more satisfactory than a tribunal composed of four Judges selected in that way. He had only to say, in conclusion, that the item to which the hon. Member for Dungarvan objected was a very small one; and as there were several Petitions relating to municipal elections, and means must be had to meet any trials of Election Petitions, he hoped the Committee would not assent to the Motion for the reduction of the Vote.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, there was a great difference between the practice which existed in England with regard to the trial of Election Petitions and that which prevailed in Ireland. Those Petitions were tried in England by the

    1483
    Puisne Judges, and here it was the custom to appoint to Puisne Judgeship lawyers who had not taken a prominent part in politics. The English Attorney General or Solicitor General was very seldom made a Puisne Judge; but in Ireland the Puisne Judges, as well as the Chief Justices, were chosen exclusively from the leading political lawyers of the day. There was, therefore, in that respect, a broad distinction between the position of the two countries. But he objected to the present mode of trying Election Petitions altogether. A popular Assembly could not, in his opinion, properly divest itself of the right to try its own Election Petitions, and the House could, at any time, resume the power to do so with which it had parted. In Ireland there could be no doubt it was believed that the present system was not impartially carried out, and that great partiality had been displayed, especially in the cases in which he himself and the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had been unseated—the one as Member for the county, and the other for the borough, of Galway. The result showed what was the real feeling of the people in Ireland, the aristocracy having gone one way, while the people struggled to go in the opposite direction. He hoped the hon. Member for Dungarvan would press his Motion to a Division, because the majority of the people of Ireland had no trust whatever in some of the Judges—he would not say in all—so far as the trial of Election Petitions was concerned.
    MR. CALLANwas sure the Committee must have heard with satisfaction the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, as to the junior Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench being appointed to assist in the trial of Election Petitions. There could be no objection to Mr. Justice Barry acting in that capacity, although it was generally the case that the junior Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland was a man who had taken a very active part in politics. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, had also stated that the Judges in Ireland were placed on the rota in such a manner as to preclude the possibility of any undue or unfair selection being made. There had, nevertheless, been such an undue selection made. After the General Election, in 1874, there was
    1484
    a Petition against the return of the present Member for Drogheda (Dr. O'Leary). Now, the senior Judge on the rota was not sent down to try that Petition; but, by some sleight of hand, things were so manipulated that he went to Galway instead. He had made the same charge of unfairness a few years ago, and he now repeated it, in the hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would either meet it with a denial or explain it. It could not, however, be met with a denial, for the facts were beyond dispute. A Petition was lodged against the return of the hon. Member for Drogheda. That Petition was not tried by the senior Judge, Mr. Justice Lawson, as it ought to have been; and it was at the time commonly rumoured in Ireland that that learned Judge had been reserved for the trial of the Galway Election Petition, with the avowed purpose of unseating the present Member for Dungarvan. The Drogheda Petition was tried by the junior Judge, Mr. Justice Barry, Baron Dowse being, he believed, the other Judge on the rota. A difficulty arose in the case, and Mr. Justice Barry reserved the point for the decision of the Court of Common Pleas; and the ultimate result of the Petition was that the Election was held to be valid. Had the senior Judge on the rota, however, been sent to Drogheda, it was felt that the present Member for the borough would have been unseated, and that the seat would have been given to the candidate by whom he was opposed. As it was, Mr. Justice Lawson went to Galway, and unseated the present Member for Dungarvan, who, it was fully believed in Ireland, would have retained his seat had the Petition against him been tried, as it ought to have been, by Mr. Justice Barry. How, under such circumstances, could such a tribunal as that by which Election Petitions were now tried in Ireland be regarded with anything but distrust? For his own part, if a Petition was lodged against his own return—should he be returned at the next General Election—and that Justice Lawson was appointed to try it, he should not defend his seat, so sure was he of what the result of the trial would be. As to the item in the Vote for the reception of Judges, he would observe, in answer to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the

    1485
    Attorney General for Ireland had said about the necessity of providing for the case of municipal elections, that there were no expenses incurred for the reception of Judges in those cases; and when he found in the Vote a sum of only £100 set down for the reception of Judges next year, he at once came to the conclusion that the Government did not intend that there should be a General Election, otherwise they would have asked for a larger amount than £100. He perceived, he might add, that the sum of £140 was asked for last year, when no Election Petition had been tried; and how, therefore, that sum could have been spent on the reception of Judges he could not understand. It seemed that £305 had been spent last year in connection with the performance of duties in the discharge of which there was no work done; while £240 were asked for this year to be expended, for all he could see, in the same way. He hoped those items now appeared in the Estimates for the last time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)wished to say a few words in reply to the charges which had been brought very freely, in the course of the discussion, against he did not know how many Judges. [Mr. CALLAN: Only Mr. Justice Lawson.] But the charge could not very well rest on only one Judge, because a man could not be in collusion with himself alone; and if the statement of the hon. Member with regard to the trials of the Drogheda and Galway Petitions were correct, Mr. Justice Lawson must have been in collusion with Mr. Justice Barry.
    MR. CALLANsaid, everybody knew how these matters were decided by the Judges; and he had no hesitation in saying that Mr. Justice Lawson had reserved himself for Galway, and sent the junior Judge on the rota to Drogheda. That was a charge which he was prepared to make anywhere against Mr. Justice Lawson, as freely and fully as he now made it in that House.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, the hon. Member seemed to suppose that Mr. Justice Lawson had ordered Mr. Justice Barry about as if he were a waiter at a hotel, instead of a Judge having inordinate jurisdiction. To insinuate, with respect to two distinguished Judges, that of two ways open to them one took the
    1486
    honourable and another the dishonourable way, was a course of proceeding which he was sure would not find acceptance from the Committee. The hon. Member spoke of common rumour; but was the character of a Judge, he would ask, to be taken away on common rumour and general impressions in the public mind? Hon. Members opposite had, of course, a right to entertain their own opinions with regard to particular decisions given at the trials of Election Petitions, and affecting themselves or their friends; but it was neither fair nor reasonable that they should cast reflections on the honour of the Judges by whom those decisions were pronounced. A Judge could not decide both ways, but must decide in favour of one side and against the other; and there was not, he believed, a single Judge in Ireland who would not be delighted to be relieved of what was to them a most disagreeable duty in connection with Elections. But, passing from those exciting topics to the small details of the Vote, he would point out to the Committee that a portion of the money asked for was to cover the expenses of the extra work which might be thrown on the officers of the Court of Common Pleas, who had a good deal to do in connection with municipal as well as Parliamentary Elections. He did not see how the whole amount of the item to which hon. Gentlemen opposite so much objected could fairly be regarded as being at all excessive; and the expenditure appeared to him, he must say, to be calculated upon a very moderate footing.
    THE O'CONOR DONthought the discussion to which the Committee had just been listening served to bear out the views of those who objected to having the duty of trying Election Petitions imposed on the Judges of the land. Whether the statements which had been made that evening were correct or not, every hon. Member must admit that it was an unseemly thing that the conduct of the Judges should be so frequently impugned in that House. He quite concurred with the right hon. and learned Member who spoke last that the Judges in Ireland would very gladly be relieved from what they regarded as a disagreeable duty; and he, for one, had always been opposed to the transference of that duty to them from the House itself. The

    1487
    debates which had constantly arisen on the subject since the change had been made fully bore out his views, and that of some other hon. Members, as to the inexpediency of making it; and if his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan went to a Division he should certainly vote with him; but, in doing so, he did not wish, in any way, to be supposed to express his distrust of any particular Judge. He simply wished, acting in accordance with the views which he had always held, to record his opinion that the duties of trying Election Petitions ought not to be thrown on the Judges of the land, and that the House of Commons, in those cases, ought to maintain its jurisdiction over its own Members.
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, the duties in question had been imposed on the Judges contrary to their own wish; and he was quite aware that the transference to them, of those duties had been strongly objected to by some of them, and by no one more vehemently than the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in Ireland. That learned Judge had pointed out the evils which would result from, the transference, and the soundness of his view was illustrated by what occurred from year to year. The fact was, that the trial of Election Petitions was totally unsuited to the office of Judge, which could not be mixed up with political matters in Ireland without being more or less soiled by the contact. It might be impossible to induce the House to revert to the old practice, which, in his opinion, was much better than the present system; but he would suggest to the Government that they ought to take into account the Report of the evidence of the witnesses who were examined before the Election Commission on the subject. Lord Chief Justice Morris, and other witnesses of eminence and great experience, had clearly and emphatically stated that the trial of Election Petitions ought not to be left to a single Judge; and due attention ought, he thought, to be paid to the opinion of that learned Judge, as well as of the other witnesses. It might be said in England there were not a sufficient number of Judges to admit of more than one being spared for the trial of an Election Petition; but that was an argument which did not apply to the case of Ireland, where two Judges could
    1488
    be very well spared for that purpose. What had been the result of the operation of the present system in Ireland? In the case of the Galway Election, it had led to a universal feeling of indignation being roused among the Roman Catholics in that country. The judicial impartiality of another learned Judge had teen frequently and vehemently assailed in the Irish Press and in that House. It could not be denied that, unfortunately, the consequence had been to lower and degrade the judicial office in the public mind. And when, in the course of their ordinary duties, political matters came for decision before these Judges, the confidence of the public in their integrity and impartiality was much impaired and weakened. The question was not whether these charges thus publicly made against the Judges were well-founded or not, but what was their inevitable effect on the public mind. He might, perchance, individually say the action of the judicial body was not to be judged from the consideration of the conduct of one man, or that many statements had been made as to the action of the Judges in which he could not agree; but the very fact that charges were so repeatedly made against them in that House ought, in his opinion, to be quite sufficient to impress on the Government the expediency of having two Judges to try Election Petitions instead of one. [An hon. MEMBER: Three would be better than two.] He would not object to that for Ireland; but the law ought to be, he thought, the same for England and Ireland. And he thought it would be said there was not a sufficient number of Judges to discharge that duty in England. However, if the responsibility was committed to two, public confidence would to some extent be restored, and the alteration would, he believed, remove many of the evils which arose out of the present system. If two Judges had, for instance, been engaged in the trial of the celebrated Galway Petition, there would not, he felt confident, have been such an exhibition of feeling as, unhappily, took place. He knew very well, from some experience at the Bar, how, both by members of the Profession as well as by the public at large, the judgments in such cases were challenged; and it was somewhat of an anomaly, he could not help thinking, that while upon the trial

    1489
    of a question, involving a mere matter of, perhaps, £30 or £40, four Judges might be called upon to sit in solemn array, a question affecting the honour, and position in life of a Member of that House, the interests of a constituency, even the constitution of the House itself, should be left to the decision of a single Judge. The question was one not merely affecting the Irish Judges, many of whose decisions in those matters were far superior to those of the English Judges. But when dealing with Election matters it should be borne in mind the Judge acted not merely in the discharge of his ordinary functions but also as a juror. Not unfrequently his previous training and habit of thought rendered him unfitted to consider facts from a practical common-sense point of view, and consequently some of the Election Judges took various fanciful views, and arrived at conclusions very unsatisfactory to either the legal mind craving a settled standard of law, or the lay mind seeking a practical guide of conduct.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that with reference to the observation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, that no person should bring charges against a Judge upon mere rumour or general impressions, he wished to say that he had only supplemented the charge he had made by stating the general impression which ran through the public mind on the subject. What was that impression? It had been, officially stated that the Judges who were selected to try Election cases were placed upon the rota by seniority. They were either placed upon the rota by seniority, or they were not. He believed that, by the Act of Parliament, the Judges were placed upon the rota by seniority. In 1874, Mr. Justice Lawson, Mr. Baron Dowse, and Mr. Justice Barry were the Election Judges. The senior Judge was Mr. Justice Law-son, and the junior Mr. Justice Barry; and had the Galway Petition been tried by Mr. Justice Barry his decision would have given universal satisfaction. If a decision of the other Judges had given equal satisfaction, there would have been no such outcry as had taken place. The outcry had arisen in consequence of the case being tried by Mr. Justice Lawson, who, he repeated, was the senior Judge. At that time, there were two Petitions pending, one arising in
    1490
    respect of the General Election, and the other with regard to a bye-Election, which took place immediately after. If the Petitions had been tried by the Judges according to seniority, Mr. Justice Lawson would have taken the case of the Drogheda Petition. He supposed, however, that the senior Judge had the choice of the Circuit, and that Mr. Justice Lawson selected Galway. By seniority, he ought to have gone to Drogheda; and the result of his going to Galway was the unfair decision that was given in that case. It was the general impression of the public that Mr. Justice Lawson had selected Galway for the purpose of unseating the Member petitioned against. It was unfortunate that there should be such an impression; but it was, nevertheless, the fact that it existed. He must express his opinion that Mr. Justice Lawson was guilty of gross partiality in the trial of the Galway Petition.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYobserved, that the practice of questioning the decisions of Judges was a very objectionable one; but it was well known to anyone who followed Irish affairs that there were some Judges in Ireland who interested themselves to a much greater extent in politics than was done by the Judges in England. There were one or two Judges who entertained very strong opinions upon political questions in Ireland. One Judge might entertain very strong political bias in favour of one party; and when they found such a Judge trying an Election Petition it was only natural that some distrust should be felt. It might be true that such a Judge might be as impartial as a man could be, and as free from bias or prejudice of any kind as it was possible for a Judge to be; but the public would never believe that that was the case, for they were unable to disassociate a Judge from his political opinions, and that was more than usually the case on the trial of Petitions in Election cases. Whether the public impression were right or wrong, it, nevertheless, existed; and to enforce a due respect and estimation for the Bench it was necessary to avoid the possibility of its occurring. In common with some other hon. Members, he very much regretted the change that had taken place in transferring from that House to the Judges the decision upon Election Petitions. The

    1491
    House would have done well to retain its power to declare whether an Election was pure or not. He knew that there were very great objections to the Committees of that House, which were formerly charged with the trial of these cases. When the majority of the Committee was of one opinion there was no doubt as to the result of the case. Still, he did not think that that often occurred, for if it did public opinion would have most certainly condemned it. They knew that upon no matter was opinion in that House stronger than with regard to the conduct of Elections. He believed that they could have come to a time when a number of gentlemen could have been found to sit upon those Committees without any feeling upon the matter at all. But even if there were any objection to the Committees from any suspicion of partiality, the decision of so important a matter as the representation of a constituency should not have been left to a single Judge. Let them look, for one moment, at the case of the Galway Petition. In that case it was tried before a Judge, who was well known, at one time, to have had very strong political opinions. Yet his decision alone not merely unseated one Member, but actually seated another. Thus, it was in the hands of a single Judge to take the representation from a large majority of voters and to give it to a minority. The decision of that Judge placed in the House a Gentleman who was supported by a very small minority of the voters. He remembered its being said in one case—"That man calls himself my Member; but I am one of the majority, and I never voted for him." That was a scandal; but it was one which might occur any day under the present system, although not to so marked an extent as it had done. Perhaps it would be absurd to return to the old system; but they might prevent the decisions in cases of Elections being left to depend upon one single Judge, who might be influenced by political feeling. That could readily be remedied by putting the decision in the hands of two—if not three—Judges.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that if there was any class of public functionaries who ought to be safe from discussions of that kind it was the Judges who sat upon the justice seat. Nothing was more injurious than to have discussions of that charac-
    1492
    ter raised upon the Judges who administered justice; and, therefore, he thought it peculiarly unfortunate that political trials—as Election Petitions were—should have to be tried by one Judge, and especially in a country like Ireland. There could be no doubt that some most regretable discussions concerning the partiality or impartiality of some of the Irish Judges with regard to Election Petitions had arisen, and principally, perhaps, from the great distinctions between England and Ireland. He did hope that they were going to have a better future; but, hitherto, it had been notorious that the appointments to the Bench in Ireland had been made from political lawyers; whereas in England, for a long time past, it had been equally notorious that men were appointed to the Bench because of their professional eminence and personal fitness, irrespective of Party considerations. To take the case of the last appointed Judge in England—Mr. Justice Bowen—he might observe that he never had a seat in that House at all. In Ireland Judges were appointed wholly for political reasons; and, as a rule, no man had been elevated to the Bench unless he had done Party service, either inside or outside of the House. He would remind the Government of a discussion which took place in respect of the very last appointment to the Bench in Ireland. Mr. Justice Fitzgibbon, than whom no better man could have been appointed, was no sooner raised to the Bench than the Conservative journals began to ask—Did he pay £10 to the Constitutional Club? Was he not suspected of Liberal opinions? He thought that kind of talk was a reproach to justice in Ireland. Instead of saying that the new Judge was a man eminent in his Profession—as he undoubtedly was—and that he was a man of unblemished integrity, and of the highest character, the journals only fixed upon a question of Party subscriptions to see whether he had qualified himself. Let them look at the other Judges—he would not mention names, feeling that it was only in extremities that the names of Judges should be mentioned upon the floor of that House, because they could not be heard in their own defence; he had never hesitated to express his opinion of the Judges in Ireland, where they could lay hands upon him—but he would not abuse his privileges in that House. A

    1493
    man who was most sure of attaining to the Bench in Ireland was the man who was most strongly a Party man; but, nevertheless, there was no other country which could produce a Judiciary of, with occasionally a few exceptions, a higher character, or of greater ability, than Ireland. There was no doubt of the integrity of the Irish Bench in issues between man and man; but the moment they began to try Party issues suggestions were raised as to Party motives, and the strong opinions that were delivered lost their force, because the impartiality of the Election Judge was doubted. The famous Galway case was naturally referred to. In that celebrated case, which had aroused the feeling, even in England, that there was a necessity for a second Judge, it was undoubted that the Judge was one of the strongest of partizans. The language of his judgment was rather suited to the political platform than the Judicial Bench. He would press upon the Government, for the sate of the Judges, and for the sake of the Judicial Bench, to take the decision of Election cases from one Judge, and to place it either, in the hands of two or three Judges. He should prefer also that, if necessary, there should be an appeal to the Court. When they had a General Election in Ireland, if one Judge only tried the Election Petitions, let not the House of Commons be surprised if unfortunate suspicions were raised against Judge A, or Judge B, or Judge C. He would appeal to the Government to rescue the Judges from those suspicions—it was due to the character of the Irish Judiciary—that they should cease to have in that House those unhappy discussions with regard to the partiality of the Irish Judges.
    MR. PARNELLhoped that before the next General Election the desirability would be seen of appointing more than one Judge for the trial of Election Petitions. He did not suppose that Parliament would ever go back to the old plan of trying Election Petitions itself. So far as he could see, there were many advantages in not having Election Petitions tried by Parliament, where Party considerations must come into play, but rather by the Judges of the land. But it was essentially necessary that they should adopt such a system of trial as
    1494
    should avoid any possibility of a charge of partizanship, or Party, or religious bias, being brought against the Judges who tried the case. In Ireland, it had, unfortunately, happened that that had not been the case. All the Petitions that had been tried in Ireland, with one exception, had shown that the Judges had not been above Party considerations. If they went back to the celebrated County Galway trial by Mr. Justice Keogh, that trial made the name of the Irish Justiciary infamous throughout the world. Even in America, where the Judges were not celebrated for their purity, that decision was considered a perfect monstrosity of judicial decisions. It was said that they wanted to be above clerical interference, and therefore it was necessary to select Judges who would properly perform their duty; but they did not carry out their object in that matter, for all their attempts in that direction had recoiled only upon themselves. It was too late to attempt to convert the Irish people by Act of Parliament, or by persecution. All attempts to convert the Irish people to the religion of England had only resulted in the fact that the Irish people were more devotedly attached to the Roman Catholic religion than any other people on the face of the earth. England had far better leave those matters to the good sense of all the parties concerned, instead of adopting a system according to their ideas, in order to meet certain difficulties that might or might not exist in Ireland. It had better leave all those questions to be settled by the good sense of the parties concerned. Interference would only lead to results that were not anticipated; and, instead of being calculated to remedy the evil supposed to exist, it would only increase it. A question had been put by the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, as to whether Mr. Justice Lawson himself chose to try the Galway Petition instead of trying the Drogheda Petition, which was first on the list? The Galway Borough Petition was one which arose from a bye-Election; but the Drogheda Borough Petition arose from the General Election. According to the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland the Judges tried those Petitions according to seniority; and the Galway Borough

    1495
    Petition ought, therefore, to have been tried by Mr. Justice Barry, when the Drogheda Petition would have fallen to the lot of Mr. Justice Lawson. What happened was exactly the reverse. It was evidently seen by the authorities, who made arrangements in those matters, that the Galway Borough Petition was of such a character that there was a very great chance that if an unscrupulous Judge was sent down to try it a favourable decision might be arrived at; whereas, on the other hand, the Drogheda Election Peitition was of such a character that it could not possibly make much difference who tried it. Therefore, Mr. Justice Lawson was sent down to try the Galway Petition, and Mr. Justice Barry was sent to try the Election Petition in Drogheda. That was wrong, for they ought to have stuck to the rota; and if that had been done they would have avoided the unfortunate scandal which had occurred. The Irish Judges were not like the English Judges; the whole system had been deliberately designed, in order that it might be made use of as a powerful instrument against the march of the country. The Bar in Ireland formerly gave the Government a considerable amount of trouble; and it was, therefore, arranged, as a part of the programme, that a system of offices should be instituted of such a character that there should be one Government place for every two lawyers in Ireland. Every other man, when he went to the Bar, was taught to look to Government authority as the "end all and be all" of his career. He did not, as in England, go to the Bar to learn the law and to work his way up in his Profession, step by step, and, perhaps, eventually to attain the Bench or high office; but he went to the Bar in Ireland with the deliberate intention—particularly if a young man of inferior ability and indifferent application, with the idea of obtaining an inferior place, either as a County Court Judge or assistant barrister, or something of that kind under Government. Then if such a man got into Parliament, and, after a few years, the political Party of which he was a supporter succeeded to power, he succeeded to the Office of Irish Attorney or Solicitor General, and all his professions of patriotism vanished. The next step was that he was made a Judge, and was
    1496
    found trying Election Petitions, and sentencing political prisoners. This was the system against which he and his Friends in that House desired to protest, on the present as on other occasions; and in so protesting they wished to place on record their opinion that the political and social circumstances in England and Ireland were so different that the system which might work well in the former was utterly useless in the last-named country. It was out of the question to say that a satisfactory trial of an Election Petition could be got in Ireland, if it was to be tried by one Judge as in England. In fact, he was surprised that the Government should attempt to maintain the present state of things in Ireland; and he hoped that, before the General Election, the Government would-remove this great scandal and reproach from the Irish Bar and Bench, and provide that Election Petitions should be tried in that country by three Judges, instead of by one as at present.
    MR. BIGGARhoped that, whatever was done, it would never again be possible for Judge Lawson to sit as sole Judge in the hearing of any Election Petition. Within his recollection, the only Judges hearing Election Petitions in Ireland who had proved needlessly corrupt were Mr. Justice Lawson and Mr. Justice Keogh.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that such a direct charge as the hon. Member brought against a Judge was one which could only be constitutionally brought in the form of an Address to the Crown, praying for the removal of the Judge whose conduct was impeached. The hon. Member was incurring a grave responsibility in using the terms he had just used.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not suggest that either of the Judges he had referred to had been actuated in the course they took by any desire to obtain money from either of the parties to the Petitions; but he did maintain that they had acted in a most frightful manner, and that Justice Keogh had distinguished himself particularly in this respect in his conduct while trying and giving judgment in the Galway Election Petition trial. That judgment was, in his opinion, utterly dishonest, for the language in which it was couched was such as no gentleman—to say nothing of the fact that he was a Judge—ought to have used. It was now

    1497
    known that when the Judge ended his days he was insane; and it was, therefore, possible that when he pronounced the Galway judgment he was either under the influence of insanity or strong drink. Whether this was or was not the case had never been cleared up; but it must be perfectly obvious to anyone that his judgment was an outrage on justice. During the time that Justices Keogh and Lawson were colleagues they went the same Circuit together, and the one was always perfectly ready to endorse the other's opinion, whenever questions were raised by counsel.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that this was not relevant to the Vote before the Committee.
    MR. BIGGARbowed to the decision; but contended that if the public had no confidence in Judges when they were trying general issues, they were not likely to have that confidence when Election Petitions were being tried by the same learned gentlemen, whose decisions might place Members in that House who, in no adequate manner, represented the views of the constituencies whom they, nominally, represented.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was not desirous to prolong the irrelevant debate which had sprung up; but he must protest against the personal attacks which had been made upon certain learned Judges—one of whom was now dead—who had, he believed, honestly discharged their duties. A legitimate opportunity of expressing adverse opinions as to the mode in which Election Petitions were tried would occur when the Bill relating to that question was before the House. If the Business of Parliament had gone on smoothly this particular measure might have been proceeded with in the present Session.
    MR. SHAWsaid, he should vote for the proposal of the hon. Member for Dungarvan on principle, and not on account of the personal attacks which he and some other hon. Members had made on certain Irish Judges; because he did not think there were any Judges on the Irish Bench who would wilfully act in a corrupt manner. At the same time, he thought there was room for an improvement in the existing law in respect of the manner in which Election Petitions were tried in Ireland; and he hoped the Attorney General would, before the next General Election, endeavour to hit upon
    1498
    a plan by means of which a remedy could be found.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, it was from no feeling of personal resentment or disappointment that, in the course of the debate, he had felt it his duty to make charges against certain Irish Judges; but he felt bound to repeat that Justice Lawson had given judgments directly contrary to the evidence before him, and, if an opportunity was given to him by the Government, he would prove the truth of this allegation. This was particularly the case in reference to the Galway Petition, when Justice Lawson said that he (Mr. O'Donnell) had held a meeting of butchers in order to terrorize over the constituency. There was no evidence before the Judge in support of this view; but there was evidence to show that the tradesmen and freemen of Galway had a right to hold meetings, and to vote, and that the butchers in question were not a mere body of roughs, as suggested by the Judge, who had taken part in a movement whose sole object it was to intimidate the meeting which had been called, unless that meeting was favourable to his(Mr. O'Donnell's) views. There were 20 points on which he could have proved that the judgment of Mr. Justice Law-son was wrong; but he was unable to do so, because the Judge imputed to him the personal stain of having directly communicated with the butchers in question, and induced them to take the part in the meeting which he alleged against them. Reference had been made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the Government Bill in reference to Corrupt Practices at Elections; and he ventured to say that that Bill would have the distinct effect of worstening the existing state of thing.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member was not in Order in discussing the provisions of a Bill which was before the House.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was bound to defer to the ruling of the Chairman; but it seemed somewhat hard that he could say nothing as to a Bill which had been referred to as likely to remove the grievances complained of, and which he did not believe would have any such effect.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not refer to the provisions of the Bill, but

    1499
    simply mentioned the fact of its existence.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would, then, be content with repeating his opinion that there was a consensus of opinion in Ireland in opposition to the present mode of trying Election Petitions in that country.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he had for many years enjoyed the honour and pleasure of being acquainted with Mr. Justice Lawson, and he wished to express his opinion—as that learned Judge had been attacked—that there was not on the Bench in any European country a more high-minded, conscientious, and pains-taking Judge than Mr. Justice Lawson was. The statement that he had voluntarily suppressed or invented any evidence was as void of foundation as any statement made in the House. It was the duty of every Irish Member to defend a Judge who had been so frequently and so unmercifully assailed in that House as Mr. Justice Lawson had been.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought the statement of the hon. Member for Dungarvan must be taken notice of apart from his Motion. The statement in question did not embody the manner in which the character of one of the Judges of the land ought to be dealt with, either in that House or elsewhere. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had said that he would prove the charges he brought against Mr. Justice Lawson if the Government would give him an opportunity of doing so; but he would point out to the hon. Member that he could make that opportunity for himself, by putting on the Paper a Notice of his intention to move an Address to the Crown praying for the removal of the Judge from the Bench. This would be a fair and legitimate way of dealing with the matter; but to throw imputations broadcast was unfair in itself, injurious to the administration of justice, and contrary to the practice and Constitution of this country.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he agreed with the general principle which had been laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee; but he would remind the Committee that he was debarred from taking the course suggested by the line pursued by Mr. Justice Lawson, in the first instance, which shut him out of the
    1500
    House altogether. He should certainly take preliminary steps in the direction suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford; and if he received support on that occasion he should proceed to the further step which was suggested by the hon. and learned Member.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he did not propose to enter into the question of the merits or demerits of any particular Judge. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that the proper time to discuss this question was when the Corrupt Practices Bill came before the House, and he had intimated that the Bill must be passed before the Elections took place. The late Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) took the deepest interest in this subject, and for three Sessions to his (Mr. Gray's) knowledge, and possibly longer, he impressed on the Government the necessity of such a Bill. Every Session he was met by a promise to introduce a Bill in the following year; but every year he was put off. A Bill had been introduced this year; but it had been kept back so long that it could not now be passed into an Act, and he (Mr. Gray) feared that there was no real determination on the part of the Government to pass such a measure before the General Election.
    MR. O'CONORsaid, he took very great interest in this subject; but ho had not addressed the Committee in regard to it, because he thought it would be out of Order, in discussing on this Vote a Government Bill. As regarded, however, what had been said by his hon. Friend, he would remind him, even if the Government Bill passed, they would be in the same position as before in regard to this matter.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 182: Majority 156.—(Div. List, No. 197.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (9.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £111,661, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Expense of the Superintendence of Prisons, and of the Maintenance of Prisoners in Prisons in Ireland, and of the Registration of Habitual Criminals."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, this Vote involved many questions not yet discussed this Session, and the discussion of which had been postponed for a variety of reasons. It was considered desirable, when the Totes for the Scotch and English Prisons were before the Committee, that they should wait until they had the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the conduct of prisons. That Report had been only printed and distributed among Members that morning, and they had not had an opportunity of considering it. The question of prison flogging was postponed from the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill until they could reach those Votes, in order not to delay the progress of that Bill. As there were a number of questions with reference to these Votes which could not be dealt with at that hour of the night, he trusted the Government would agree to postpone it until tomorrow, and proceed with some other Business, when they would be able to take the second reading of several Bills. He begged to move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. J. LOWTHERobserved, that the hon. Gentleman had recently been occupied with another matter, which, although, connected with the representation of the people, had necessitated his absence from his place upon a recent occasion; and he, therefore, was apparently not aware that this Vote had been under discussion for more than an hour. [An hon. MEMBER: But at 3 o'clock in the morning.] This Vote occupied a considerable amount of discussion, and other questions, besides those mentioned by the hon. Member, were raised, especially with reference to the medical staff. At that time, after the discussion, a proposition was made that the Vote should be postponed on account of the lateness of the hour; and in order to meet that feeling it was postponed. They had now devoted another whole night to the Irish Estimates, having previously withdrawn two others in accordance with the wish of Irish Members; and he really thought it would be very unreasonable at that hour which, at this period of the Session, was a comparatively early hour. It was the last they had to pass that
    1502
    night; and he did hope, under all circumstances, especially as the Vote had already been largely discussed, the Government would be allowed to take it.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERbegged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the discussion to which he had alluded was principally whether the Vote should be postponed or not, and though there was some high conversation there was no general discussion of the Vote itself. The Committee had now been very hard at work all night; and it would be quite as well if they could pass on to other Votes, especially as they would probably make quite as much progress in that way as by going straight on. He merely suggested that, and was not going to press it on the Government; but he thought there was a great deal of force in what the right hon. Gentleman had said about the period of the Session. Still, they did not want to go on with their work in the dark, and no one would wish to pass Votes until they had been fairly debated.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, of course, he was very sensible that they should yield to the Government as much as possible at that period of the Session; but there were points of the utmost importance on this Vote which must be discussed. ["Go on !"] It was all very well for hon. Members to say "Go on!" but after working in the Committee since a quarter to 4 he considered they had done a good day's work. For his part, he felt absolutely unable to do justice at that time, and under the circumstances of the case, to the very important questions raised by this Vote. Let him remind the Committee what those points were. First of all, there was the question of the rules to be adopted under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. When this matter was before the House of Commons on the Prison Act the Home Secretary gave him a distinct pledge that the prison rules he would adopt for untried prisoners should be extended to prisoners arrested under any suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. What was the real fact? The Home Secretary, by the way in which he had drawn his rules, had distinctly excluded prisoners arrested under any suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act from the benefit of the exceptional and lenient rules which he had adopted for untried prisoners, They were, therefore, left in

    1503
    the same position in which they always were, as regarded prisoners arrested under any suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. If the Government should choose to suspend that Act again, a proceeding they might always resort to at a moment's notice—last time, he believed, it was done on a Sunday—they would be left without any rule for the treatment of the prisoners arrested; and it was on the last occasion, according to the testimony of a distinguished medical man in Dublin, worse than that endured by persons undergoing a sentence of penal servitude. Then, next, they had the question of prison flogging. Now, they had no flogging in their borough gaols, though it existed in the convict prisons, where it was of a most brutal and horrible character. He saw, the other day, the sister of a man named Tiernay, or O'Conner, a political prisoner, who was flogged in Spike Island for attempting to escape. He received four dozen lashes. He was put in irons. He was kept in irons for eight months, and he had solitary confinement for 21 days, on bread and water. This might happen again, for the management of Spike Island was simply infamous, and he wished to have the opportunity of exposing that management. Then there was the question of imprisonment in solitary cells. That was indulged in to a very large extent, merely at the option of the gaoler, and without the order of the Visiting Justices. There was no report made of any such punishment, or of the reasons why they were inflicted, or of the offences for which they were inflicted. There ought to be these reports; and yet they were now asked to vote this money to the Government without making any provision of that sort. It was impossible that he could do justice, at that hour of the night, to the questions which he wished to raise. If the Government were desirous of appearing to get through the Votes, he was willing that they should do so on condition that they gave him a fair opportunity on Report of raising the questions which he wished to raise with regard to this Vote. Those questions were of the utmost magnitude; and he could not allow the Session to pass without having an opportunity of bringing them properly before the House of Commons. The new prison system was admittedly experimental; and a number of sub-
    1504
    jects had to be considered in connection with it which had hitherto not been touched upon. The question of flogging was one which he had distinctly postponed until the present Vote came on for discussion, in order that the Government might carry the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill in time for it to be passed by the House of Lords; and he would be failing in his duty if he did not secure discussion of this important matter at the time when he had the power of doing so. He, therefore, trusted the Government would agree to the postponement of the Vote.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONagreed that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) should have an opportunity, on Report, of discussing the questions to which he had referred; and, therefore, if the Vote was allowed to be taken then, he should be willing that the discussion should take place to-morrow, when the Government proposed to report all the Votes which had been taken. If, however, there was not time on Report for the proposed discussion, he would take care that an opportunity should be given on another evening.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RYLANDSdesired to call the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to items of increase—in salaries, £2,002; victualling, £1,865; fuel, light, and water, £1,945. These items required consideration. With respect to the victualling of prisons, unless there had been a large increase in the number of prisoners, he was quite unable to understand how this large additional sum had been incurred, especially as there had been a considerable fluctuation in the price of all kinds of food, which, in the case of the Vote for Lunatic Asylums, had resulted in a very material reduction of charge during the past year. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee some explanation with regard to these items.
    MR. SULLIVANinquired if any arrangement had been made with respect to the medical officers of prisons, mentioned a few days previously to the right hon. Gentleman?
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the question of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) raised a number of points which he had not had time to deal with since the conversation

    1505
    took place. The increase in the items referred to by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was, in a great measure, due to the changes which had taken place in the prison system.
    MR. RYLANDScould not agree that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was the right one. The change of system had been recommended to the House as a means of economy; but the Committee were now informed that the change had led to an increase of expense. He had a strong impression that the taking over of the prisons by the Government was likely to lead to an excess of expenditure, not only in England, but in Ireland and Scotland.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that as hon. Members were aware, an Inspector had to be appointed under the Act of Parliament, and the item of salaries would, in consequence, be increased. There had also been an increase in the fees connected with the Prison Board, in consequence of the new appointment. There had, he was sorry to say, been an increase of 234 prisoners; and he might observe that the sum of £18,000 under sub-head P was insufficient to defray the cost, even if no increase in the number of prisoners had taken place.
    MR. RYLANDScalled the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the charges for the Board of Inspectors did not come into the item to which he had alluded. If the right hon. Gentleman would look, he would observe that the items A, B, and 0 were those which had reference to the Board of Inspectors, while those he alluded to were for the salaries of the officers of the gaols. The addition of some 200 prisoners would not account for the great increase of charge occurring under this head. His object, in putting these questions, was to show the necessity which existed for some supervision, in order to control this increasing expenditure. At present, he did not know whether the Secretary to the Treasury took any trouble to look into the accounts of Irish prisons, or whether he thought it sufficient to look after the English and Scotch prisons only; but he would do well to examine the Estimates; because he (Mr. Rylands) was clear that under this Vote there was a tendency to greatly increased expenditure. Again, the Estimate did not include any expenditure on account of the manufacturing depart-
    1506
    ment, nor for the farming and garden work; but he saw, by a note at the end, that this would be deducted from the receipts, and that anything over would be paid into the Exchequer. That was a new mode of keeping accounts, but it would, he thought, be better to have an Estimate taken of the amount required, and then to set-off what was returned, so that the Committee might have a clear view of the result. The Home Secretary being now in his place, he took the opportunity of saying that there were grounds for complaint that in the first year that the Irish prisons came under the new management a very considerable increase had occurred in several items for which there appeared to be no justification, and that he hoped the next year would show the effects of greater economy.
    MR. GRAYbelieved he could elucidate the increase in the cost of victualling prisons. When the prisons were under the old system the Boards of Superintendence of the various districts gave away all their contracts by public contract to the lowest tender; the remodelled Prison Board, however, did nothing of the kind; and the contracts were now constantly given away upon tenders which were very much above the lowest in amount, although the persons who sent in the lowest tenders were of good position, and capable of giving the fullest security for the execution of their contracts. This would probably account for the increase in the victualling expenditure more correctly than the explanation offered by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and would, doubtless, be accepted by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in that sense. He thought if the Treasury would devote some attention to this subject, and say that where a man could give security for the performance of his contract his tender should not be excluded, that it would be conducive to public economy and to the credit of the Administration. Amongst other items, he saw in the Vote that the Chairman received £1,200 a-year; the Vice Chairman, £1,100 a-year; and "another member" of the Board, £1,000 a-year. He wished to know who was the other member, and whether he was a relative of any of the members of the Board? "With regard to the victualling of prisons in Ireland, he wished to point out that,

    1507
    although the charge for this item had increased, considerable discontent existed with regard to the food supplied to prisoners. It would probably be remembered that, some little time ago, he had asked a question with, reference to the verdict of a Coroner's Jury in the case of Patrick Grimes, who had died in Armagh Gaol. It had been stated that the withdrawal of the milk before given to prisoners, without the substitution of a corresponding amount of nutriment, rendered the diet of the prisoners insufficient to sustain life. The jury in the case attached to their verdict an intimation to the same effect, and forwarded a Memorial on the subject to the Lord Lieutenant. The question put to the right hon. Gentleman caused a considerable amount of laughter to be elicited by his reply, to the effect that a number of prisoners were upon the jury who had, naturally enough, an objection to the kind of food allowed them. However, according to his information, the Memorial to the Lord Lieutenant was signed by 12 individuals who were householders in the town, and not prisoners; and, in any case, a certificate was signed by the prison surgeon, testifying that sufficient food was not given to the prisoners to sustain life. This was a serious matter; but it had been passed over with a jocular answer, and no steps had been taken. Under this reformed Board they had—first, an increase in the cost of victualling; and, next, a reduction in the amount of nutriment supplied to the prisoners. Then came the fact that tenders of the lowest bidders were not accepted, as under the old system. These facts spoke loudly as to the diminution of real efficiency under the new system; and he agreed with the hon. Member for Burnley in saying that the sacrifice made by the local bodies throughout the country to relieve the rates would have no such effect, and was only a further step in the direction of centralization.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, there had, undoubtedly, been an increase generally in the expenditure, in consequence of the debits for the salaries of warders, governors, and so forth, rendered necessary by the new system, while the increase in the number of prisoners had also increased the charge for victualling.
    MR. GRAYasked, whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give some
    1508
    assurance that in future contracts would be given to respectable persons upon sufficient security? Because his contention was, that the increased cost of victualling was due to the fact that, under the Prisons Act, a system had been initiated in Ireland of not giving contracts upon the lowest tenders. The feeling which existed in Ireland was that a political tinge was given to all these matters. His view was that, in affairs of public finance, a low price from respectable people, and upon good security, should he accepted. He did not mean to say that the lowest tender should be accepted in all cases; but that there should be good reason for its being refused. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, should give an assurance that, as a general rule, the lowest tender should be accepted, and that intimation would, no doubt, be respected by the Board.
    MR. J. LOWTHERcould not accept the general principle that the lowest tender should, be accepted; but promised that inquiries should be made into the subject. The third member of the Board referred to in the Estimates was Mr. O'Brien.
    MR. LOWTHIAN BELLremarked, that the more the Vote was explained the less satisfactory it appeared. He should have imagined that the greater the amount spent in alterations the greater ought to be the economy. He was, therefore, quite unable to understand the great increase of nearly 30 per cent in the charge for fuel, light, and water.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that although, in the first place, there had been a considerable outlay, as must naturally be expected during a period of transition, the alterations, it was to be hoped, would eventually lead to economy and saving of expenditure. The item required for alterations, repairs, and buildings, was for works that would be executed during the present year.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had fairly enough admitted that the taking over of the prisons by Government had resulted in increased expenditure. But what had the Government said on a former occasion? Was not the House told that there would be great economy effected by the prisons

    1509
    being taken out of the hands of the local authorities? The Secretary to the Treasury knew very well that the Government had said the change would be an economical one; but he (Mr. Rylands) ventured to say that there had since been an increase of charge in every item in which an increase was possible. He could only say that the Committee had a right to complain of this expenditure; and that if it went on next year at the same rate the right hon. Gentleman would find that hon. Members were prepared to move the reduction of the Vote. It was to be hoped that pressure would be brought to bear upon the officials in Ireland who had the control of this expenditure, in order to insure more economy in this Department.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that the grievance of the prison chaplains was that they got only £100 a-year salary, no matter what might be the number of prisoners. If the right hon. Gentleman would turn to page 216 of the Estimates, he would find that the pay for a chaplain of the same class in England was from £100 to £200 per annum. In addition to that salary, a prison chaplain in England was granted an allowance for a residence. It was very clear, therefore, that the pay of an Irish prison chaplain was very much less than that of a gentleman in the same position in England. He would ask, was it right or proper that a prison chaplain in Ireland should not be paid at the same rate as prison chaplains in England? The gentleman to whom allusion had been made complained that the Protestant chaplain got £20 a-year more than he did, although there were fewer Protestant than Roman Catholic prisoners. He was disposed to rest the case for the increase in the salary upon two points—first, that it was an improper salary, as compared with other chaplains in Ireland; and, secondly, that it was less than was paid to English chaplains.
    MR. J. LOWTHERremarked, that there was no distinction in respect of pay between chaplains of various religious denominations; they were paid on exactly the same scale, and without any reference to their religion. With respect to the adoption of the same scale of pay for prison chaplains in Ireland as for the same class in England, it was a branch of a larger subject, and he could not then enter into it.
    MR. MELDONwished to draw attention to the case of a warder, named Kearney, formerly employed in the Richmond Penitentiary. He served for nearly 10 years in that prison; but at the commencement of the 10th year of his service he was afflicted with disease, and at the end of the 10th year was dismissed from his employment by the Board of Superintendence, on the ground that he could not live more than a few months. He was given a certificate of having completed 10 years' service, and that he had, during that period, always conducted himself with the greatest propriety; he had obtained rewards on different occasions from the Metropolitan Police, and had been complimented upon his conduct. The governor of the gaol where he was employed granted him a certificate of having served 10 years. But the Inspector General of Prisons alleged that the man had not been in the employment of the Richmond Penitentiary for 10 years. In point of fact, he wanted some five days to complete his 10 years' service. He was kept on some time, in order to complete the service; but the Inspector General said that the certificate was inaccurate, and that he was not entitled to obtain his pension for 10 years' service. He, therefore, refused absolutely to give the man his pension calculated upon 10 years' service. Some doubts were raised when the matter came before the Judge for adjudication; and as the man was not then in a fit state to enable him to appear the matter was decided against him. It was believed by many that that adjudication was erroneous. The Inspector General contended that the man was not entitled to any pension, but only to a small gratuity. Contrary to expectation the man got better, and was now tolerably well, and likely to live some few years. His case had been brought under his (Mr. Meldon's) notice, and he had suggested a Memorial to the Lord Lieutenant; for, so far as he could see, the Inspector General had acted in an utterly illegal manner. The man had received, a certificate from the governor of the gaol in which he had served that he had completed his 10 years' service, and he only left the prison a few days before the end of the year owing to the state of his health, and it was also owing to the state of his health that he could not bring his case before the

    1511
    Judge. If those facts were established, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would grant the man the pension of which he had been deprived in the way he had described.
    MR. J. LOWTHERpromised to inquire into the case. If, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the man was only five days short of the 10 years' service, he was inclined to endorse the opinion which the hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed. He would most certainly look into the case.
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, that before they passed from that Vote he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the case of the prison surgeons. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to say that prison surgeons were not to have their salaries reduced if they refused to compound medicines. But it had been stated that notwithstanding the Prisons Board had issued circulars, insisting that surgeons, who were appointed before the Act came into operation, should undertake the office of compounding medicines, or otherwise they should forfeit a portion of their salary. He thought that system was a bad one which forced a surgeon to compound medicines at all. He would not, however, go into the matter, because it had been fully discussed, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had promised to take the matter into his consideration. He wished to remind the Chief Secretary that under the new Prisons Act a very considerable increase of duty had been thrown upon surgeons; they had now eight or nine new returns to make, and a large amount of their time was occupied; they had to make 52 weekly inspections, and four quarterly inspections during a year; and. to discharge their duties properly they were obliged to occupy many hours of their time. It was an unreasonable thing to ask any prison surgeon either to compound medicines or to forfeit a portion of his salary. But it would be a grievous hardship and injustice to extend that rule to surgeons appointed before the Act. The general rule ought, on the contrary, to prevail, and all surgeons to receive extra pay for the new duties imposed on them under the provisions of the recent Act.
    MR. MELDONremarked, that it would not give satisfaction if the prisons
    1512
    surgeons received the same salary at present as they had before the Act came into operation. The threat held out to them was that if they did not compound medicines they would, be left in receipt of their present salaries. The threat was held out by the Prisons Board, in order to make surgeons comply with their requirements. He did not think it was right to make a surgeon do 10 times the work, and yet receive the same pay. He begged, again, to say that, in his opinion, the Chief Secretary would not meet the merits of the case, if he left the salaries of the prison surgeons at the same amount as at present.
    MR. J. LOWTHERremarked, that if the hon. and learned Member had been in the House when the subject was under discussion on the previous occasion, he would have heard his statement that, in consequence of representations made to him by hon. Members and others, and also in consequence of the discussions which had taken place, he had put himself in communication with the Prisons Board, and was investigating the matter with a view to a satisfactory settlement.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  EAST INDIA LOAN (CONSOLIDATED FUND) BILL— [BILL 201.]
  (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Edward Stanhope, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  EAST INDIA LOAN (CONSOLIDATED FUND) BILL— [BILL 201.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, that after the Division which took place on Friday he would venture to make a somewhat unusual appeal to the Government—namely, whether they could not make some other arrangement than they had done in the Bill? He had been looking into the provisions contained in the Bill, and more especially with reference to the respective amounts which India and England were to be called upon to contribute to the expenses of that war, and he did not think so large a proportion should be thrown upon India. He found that, out of 137 Members who voted for the second reading of the Bill no less than 29 were Members of the Government. Taking those from the majority, the result would be that the Government

    1513
    was in a minority of 17, in the opinion of independent Members. As there had been, practically, no attempt to place an Amendment with regard to the Bill on the Paper, he hoped that the Government would not proceed that night, but would, before taking the Bill, be able to make an announcement which would, to a certain extent, meet the views which had thus been so distinctly expressed.
    MR. RYLANDSremarked, that he had voted against the second reading of the Bill; but he did not vote in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend, the Member for Hackney. Many hon. Members who voted against the second reading of the Bill did so on various grounds which had relation to the manner in which the Government proposed to deal with the matter. They voted against the Government because they believed that the mode in which the Government was dealing with the question would form an objectionable precedent, and, therefore, they would rather that the Bill did not pass. He did not, however, take the same views with regard to the Bill as those which had been expressed by his hon. Friend. After the Division, the Government was perfectly justified in proceeding with the Bill notwithstanding the late period of the Session.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that he abstained from voting upon the second reading of that Bill; but he thought that if money clauses were to be put in the Bill they ought to vote against it. He did not think that they had anything to do with the Afghan War; and, for his own part—and he believed many hon. Members concurred with him—he did not see why a place, for instance, like the West of Ireland, should be made to pay for wars for the benefit of India. He should certainly vote for putting the whole of the expenses of the war upon India.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas disposed to agree with the view taken by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that after the Division which took place the other day, when a majority was in favour of proceeding with the Bill, that it ought to be proceeded with. He did not think that the whole of those hon. Members who voted in the minority took the same view as the hon. Member for Hackney, although a proportion might have done so. The question was one
    1514
    upon which he did not think that the Government should change its mind. The proposal made by the Indian Government had been accepted by the English Government early in the Session, and arrangements were made for carrying it into effect. Various objections were brought forward to the proposal, and they had a discussion the other day upon the subject. Although the majority in favour of the Government was not a very large one, yet the House did decide to go on with the Bill, and the Government could not undertake to propose any alterations in it. If they did as the hon. Member for Hackney desired, he did not think that there would be any chance of passing the Bill. In his opinion, they must go on with the Bill in its present shape.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Temporary advance of £2,000,000 out of Consolidated Fund to Government of India).
    MR. CHILDERSwished to make a suggestion to the Government and the Committee upon this clause. The proposal was one which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) strongly advocated the other evening—namely, to make loans with interest on the ordinary conditions of loans, and that the interest should be re-paid by the Government of India to the Consolidated Fund. That would not disturb the loan account, for the amount would be borrowed on the one side and lent upon the other. The matter would then appear in the Consolidated Fund charges, and it would be effected in accordance with the ordinary rule. Very few words would introduce that provision into the Bill.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not think that there was any reason for adopting the proposal, and that the transaction would be quite apparent. They proposed to keep the monies borrowed for that purpose outside the credit, and to make it appear that the amount received from India was the amount in payment of the loan and interest. He did not see the advantage of making it in three re-payments.
    MR. CHILDERSthought that the debt from India should be charged upon

    1515
    the Consolidated Fund every year, and he would suggest an Amendment in the Bill accordingly.
    MR. COURTNEYremarked, that no time was mentioned in the Bill at which the re-payments were to begin. He understood that the first instalment was to be made in the year after this; it would, therefore, be necessary to provide for seven annual instalments, and he would suggest that this should be inserted in the Bill.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be better to leave the clause as it stood. The intention was that seven annual instalments should be made, beginning in 1881. He did not think it would be desirable to tie up the hands of the Government in this matter.
    MR. CHILDERSmoved to add the words, "but the interest so received shall be re-paid to the Government of India."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. FAWCETTunderstood the Bill to contain nothing which would prevent the money being re-paid in five or six annual instalments. He would, therefore, suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had said the intention was that it should be paid off in seven, that some words should be introduced to make that intention perfectly clear.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that no doubt the intention was to have re-payment by seven annual instalments, beginning next financial year; but he saw no reason for tying up the hands of the Indian Government, who might, perhaps, agree to make the re-payment within a shorter period.
    MR. COURTNEYpointed out that, according to the strict interpretation of the clause, re-payment would be made in eight annual instalments.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid that, undoubtedly, strictly speaking, there would be eight instalments; and this might give rise to difficulty, seeing that the clause provided for equal annual instalments.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, it would not be desirable to give an opportunity to the Government of India to defer re-payment; such a plan would introduce confusion into the accounts. He would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should re-consider the question before Report.
    MR. E. STANHOPEthought great inconvenience might result from not allowing the Indian Government to arrange the most convenient time for re-payment. At present, certain annual instalments were provided for, and that arrangement would be carried out, unless something were to arise to make it desirable to adopt another course. He presumed there would be no objection to earlier re-payment than in the period mentioned in the clause.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, under the system which seemed to be favoured by the Government, it might possibly happen that in three, four, or five years, the Indian Government might drop the whole thing; whereas, if they began to pay year by year, the instalments would be regularly kept up.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould confer with his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India upon the matter.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Issue of advances and application of sums re-paid).
    MR. CHILDERSmoved the insertion, in page 1, line 18, of the words, "and all interest re-paid to the Government of England by the Government of India."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    Preamble agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday.

  LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) [SALARIES, &c]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of salaries and pensions of officers, and of compensation to them for loss of emoluments; also in the event of the Honourable Stearn Ball Miller becoming the remaining Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy, of the payment to him of additional salary in consideration of additional duties which may be imposed upon him under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for the establishment of Local Courts of Bankruptcy in Ireland."
  MR. MELDONcalled attention to the circumstance that, under the proposed Bill, the interests of the two messengers of the Bankruptcy Court had been entirely neglected by the Government. Not only was the position of these officers one of great importance and responsibility—their duties being to travel to all parts of the country, and to take possession of the property of bankrupts—but they were men of education, refinement, and superior social position. Their salaries of £250 a-year were increased by fees for travelling, over and above their actual expenses. Now, it was proposed to do away with these latter emoluments; and there was, seemingly, no provision whatever for recompensing the officers in question. He could not understand why these gentlemen should be left out in the cold, unless it was that, from their title of "messengers," it was wrongly inferred that they were merely subordinate officers. Nor did he approve of passing the Bill into law in its present shape. There was, certainly, no reason why these gentlemen should be deprived of emoluments amounting to 15 s. a-day over and above their salaries.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, this question would be more properly raised in Committee. The clauses of the Bill had been very carefully drawn.
  Resolution agreed to; to be reported To-morrow.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) [REPAYMENT OF ADVANCES.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of any deficiency in the Pension Fund which may arise in the repayment to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt of any Advances made by them for the purposes of any Act of the present Session for improving the position of the Teachers of National Schools in Ireland."
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, a question of considerable interest arose in connection with this subject; and although it was too late to enter upon its discussion he should only be doing right to call the
  1518
  attention of the Secretary to the Treasury thereto. It was proposed to charge this deficiency upon the Consolidated Fund. The Bill supposed that there should be formed a compensation fund, out of certain monies coming from the Irish Church Fund, to the extent of £13,000, and that certain contributions should also come from the salaries of the National School teachers, and upon the fund so created should be charged pensions to the school teachers, according to a scale set out in the Act. The Resolution was necessary to enable any excess of calls upon the pension fund to be defrayed, from time to time, out of the public funds. But he wanted, to point out, assuming that the proposal was sound—and upon that point he did not think it right to express any opinion on that occasion—that it was, in his view, essential that the actual expenditure for these pensions should in form be charged in the Votes of Parliament. It would be altogether abnormal and incorrect that gentlemen who had been school teachers should receive pensions except out of the same fund in form from which their salaries came. The Estimates should contain the whole charge for Irish National Schools—salaries, contingencies, and pensions. The same course ought to be followed in this case as was followed in the Greenwich Hospital Act, relating to seamen of the Navy—that policy being perfectly sound and exactly analogous to the present proposal. It was on that occasion arranged that the pensions should, in substance, be charged upon the Seamen's Fund; but in form they were charged upon the Votes of Parliament, re-payment being made out of the fund to meet the Votes. He, therefore, thought that the Resolution should be "that the deficiency should be charged on the Votes of Parliament."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwould rather postpone the Resolution to another day, in order to consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had had the question under his consideration. He quite saw the force of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. COURTNEYhoped, if any deficiency occurred in the pension fund, that when the question came to be discussed the House would be furnished with more exact information upon sub-

  1519
  jects concerning which they were now completely in the dark.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SHIPPING CASUALTIES INVESTIGATIONS (RE-HEARING) BILL.
  (Viscount Sandon, Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
  SHIPPING CASUALTIES INVESTIGATIONS (RE-HEARING) BILL.

    [BILL 262.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    VISCOUNT SANDON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that shipping casualties were now tried by a considerable variety of tribunals; some cases were tried by the stipendiary magistrates, and some by the Wreck Commissioners. The objection which existed to the jurisdiction at present was that there was no power to obtain a re-hearing, and the only thing that could be done was to refer the matter to the Board of Trade. He had known many cases to be referred where fresh evidence had come out, or other reasons had made it apparent that there had been a miscarriage of justice. As he had stated, the only mode at present to meet those cases was by the authority of the Board of Trade; but he did not think it right that the decision of a Court should be set aside by the Board of Trade. The decisions in these cases were of the greatest importance to the masters of the vessels concerned, for the suspension of their certificates meant the ruin of their prospects in life. There was a very strong feeling that there ought to be some alteration; and he would, therefore, ask the House to allow him to take the second reading of the Bill, the object of which was to provide that, in cases of miscarriage of justice, there should be power to order a re-hearing. He believed that the provisions of the Bill would remedy the grievance to which he had referred. The 2nd clause of the Bill took the appointments of the assessors from the Judge, and placed them in the hands of the authorities in London. That would remedy a grievance that had long been felt in the Merchant Service.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Viscount Sandon.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

MOTION.

  BOUNDARY COMMISSION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  On Motion of Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE, Bill to appoint a Commission to re-arrange the boundaries of the districts under the administration of local authorities in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE, Mr. PELL, Mr. CLARE READ, and Mr. BACKHOUSE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 263.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Lord Clerk Register (Scotland) * (164).
Second Reading—Industrial Schools (Powers of School Boards) (153); East Indian Railway (Redemption of Annuities) * (160).
Committee—Bills of Sale (Ireland) * (155).
Committee—Report—Conveyancing and Land Transfer (Scotland) Act (1874) Amendment * (141).
Third Reading—Slave Trade (East African Courts) * (147), and passed.

ISLAND OF CYPRUS—SLAVERY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, on the 11th of July of last year, I put a Question to the Lord President of the Council in these words—
  "Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, on assuming the occupation and administration of Cyprus, to maintain or suppress, as has been done in Her Majesty's dominions in India, the system of slavery now existing in the Island?"
  And to this Question I received the following Answer:—
  "I have to state that Sir Garnet Wolseley leaves this country to-morrow for Cyprus; and when he arrives there it will be his duty to make full inquiry and investigation into all the institutions of the Island and everything connected with them. When that is done he will make a Report to Her Majesty's Government as to the state of things he has found in Cyprus; and having received such a Report from him, Her Majesty's Government will then be in a position to state the course they intend to take."—[3 Hansard, ccxli. 1224.]
  I venture to repeat the Question, because a whole year has elapsed and no Report from the Governor of Cyprus has as yet been laid on your Lordships' Table. Now, the Question is of importance, not only as touching Slavery in general, but as to the alleged fact that it is existing in Cyprus under British rule. I know perfectly well that no Slave Trade openly exists, and that no such thing as a slave market is to be found in any part of the Turkish Empire. That system has long been abolished. But the sale and purchase of slaves are still carried on extensively by private agents and in private houses; and, indeed, constituted as Turkish society is, Slavery is as necessary and indispensable to the Empire—especially among the wealthier classes—as is the Sultan himself. Now, as Cyprus was for centuries under Turkish rule, the probability is that a similar system prevails, and that it is fed by large importations of slaves from East Africa and the Red Sea—for which latter traffic Turkey is specially responsible, as it is mainly conducted at Jeddah, a port in the Red Sea belonging to the Sultan of Turkey. From all quarters there are imported, as I am informed, some 70,000 slaves every year. None are imported for prædial or agricultural purposes. The women are imported as
  1398
  servants for the harems, and the men for other duties, for which they are previously fitted by the most cruel and disgusting mutilations. There is also a large and equally disgusting traffic in white slaves in the very centre of Turkey itself. Circassian slavery was put down by the Russians; but the Circassians who immigrated into Turkey have maintained their old habits, and sell their sons and daughters to the highest bidders among the sensualists of Turkey. Now, this domestic Slavery may prevail in Cyprus. If Cyprus be still under Turkish law, it is highly probable—certainly possible. I trust, therefore, to learn from Her Majesty's Government whether, as Cyprus has now passed under British rule, they will not, following the precedent of the law enacted in India in 1843, decree the total and immediate abolition of Slavery, whether external or domestic.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the promise referred to by my noble Friend who has just addressed the House was given by my noble Friend behind me (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) last year during my absence from this country. I really did not know that such a Report had been promised, and it has never been drawn up by Sir Garnet Wolseley. With regard to a general Report on the subject, there would be no objection to its production if any had been sent home; but I have received the most distinct and categorical statements, both from Sir Garnet Wolseley and Colonel Biddulph, that involuntary servitude does not exist in Cyprus. It is stated so positively by persons who must know that I think there can be no doubt that the fact is as they state. If my noble Friend recalls to his mind for a moment the state of the legislation in the Turkish Empire, he will see that, wherever the Turkish law is honestly enforced, Slavery is not likely to exist. It is, unfortunately, a fact that the cases in which it is so enforced are very rare. The White Slave Trade to which my noble Friend has alluded was abolished by a Decree of the Sultan in 1854, and the Black Slave Trade was abolished in 1857. Every person who landed in the Turkish Empire after those dates in a state of slavery became free by the action of the law. My noble Friend has justly stated that Slavery in Turkey has been almost entirely confined

  1399
  to, or connected with, harem life. It is obvious that men treated in the manner which my noble Friend glanced at are not likely to be long-lived; and as there has been no legal importation of them since 1857, it is probable that there are not many of those slaves now in existence. As to the women, they are of little value when they become old; and as it has been the custom in many parts of Turkey, and I presume in Cyprus, to manumit slaves when they get old, and as all who were imported after 1857 became free, I do not think that, at the present time, there is any person suffering servitude in Cyprus. With respect to the rest of the Turkish Empire, I agree with my noble Friend that there is reason to fear that the state of things—especially at Jeddah—is deplorable. We have made the most earnest remonstrances to the Turkish Government to employ Governors who shall honestly carry out the Turkish laws, and put a stop to the horrible traffic which goes on across the Bed Sea. We have very nearly concluded a Convention which will give us a right of search at the Red Sea, and which, but for the present Ministerial crisis in Constantinople, would, I think, have been already signed. We shall spare no efforts to carry out the Convention, and put a stop to that which, I believe, is now the sole supply channel of Slavery in the Turkish Empire—or, at all events, the main one. With respect more particularly to Cyprus, I can only repeat the assurance that Slavery does not exist there. When I saw the Notice of my noble Friend on the Paper I thought he might have some facts which might show that the contrary is the case; and I am very glad to find that he has nothing of the kind. The oppressed in all parts of the world find their way to the noble Earl; and if there were the slightest indication given to us which should induce us to believe that any person is kept in servitude in Cyprus against his will, we should act without hesitation, and without delay. My noble Friend may be quite satisfied, however, that nothing of the kind exists.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: Does the noble Marquess really say that there is no importation of slaves into Turkey at the present time?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, there is an illegal importation to an
  1400
  enormous extent into Turkey; but it was absolutely prohibited by the Firman of 1857. This is only one of many instances which show that, if the Turkish law were properly carried out, matters would go on very fairly in that country; but the neglect of the Administration to carry out their own laws gives rise to the present evils.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: Should her Majesty's Government discover, upon further inquiry, that there is anything of the sort in Cyprus, will they proceed to introduce the Indian legislation, in order promptly to put it down?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly.

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (POWERS OF SCHOOL BOARD) BILL—(No. 153.)
(The Lord Steward.)
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (POWERS OF SCHOOL BOARD) BILL—(No. 153.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Steward.)
  EARL FORTESCUEhoped that the Home Secretary would refuse, under the powers conferred upon him by this Bill, to diffuse expenditure of a temporary character over a long period of years. In the case of the reformatory ship which had been extravagantly fitted up by the London School Board, the cost of the carpets and furniture, and he had heard of a piano also, had been borrowed, and spread over a long series of years. Such an example, if sanctioned, would be a direct encouragement to extravagance. He hoped that nothing would be placed against the capital that was likely to be worn out in the course of those years.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPadmitted that there was a considerable expenditure on this head beyond what there ought to be; but he trusted that the conspicuous example of extravagance mentioned by the noble Lord would be the means of preventing similar cases in future. The object of the Bill was simply to enable school boards to start or contribute to the support of industrial schools.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

INDIA CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIAN GAOLS.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he regretted having to take up the time of the House with another case of illegality; but he had waited on the Secretary of State at the India Office in reference to this matter, and his noble Friend had said that he was unable to do anything. The Brahmin Gaya Pershad was imprisoned on the 3rd of November, 1874, for seven years for forgery at Jubbalpore; here he was set to work at the hand-mill, but this work was found to be too hard for him. At the end of three months, Mr. Morris, the Chief Commissioner, came to the gaol and sent him from there to Nag-pore, though Dr. Rogers said he was unfit to travel. In Nagpore Gaol he was flogged 10 or 13 times on the pretext of his having tampered with the warders, and obtained tobacco and sugar. In England, to have flogged a burglar on these grounds would have been illegal. The case might be left here; but as it was in human nature to feel more sympathy for a deserving person than for an undeserving one, he would say a few words about Gaya Pershad's case. He was a man who had received certificates from Sir Richard Temple for his services to the British Government during the Mutiny; the late General Sleeman had been a constant visitor of his father's, Behary Lai. Gaya Pershad had lent money to a Raja Bulwunt Singh, whose affairs came into the Court of Wards, and Captain, or Major, McLean had charge of that case. Gaya Pershad sued for his debt of about 100,000 rupees, including interest, and obtained a decree in his favour; the other side appealed, and he again obtained a decree in his favour. There had been a dispute between Gaya Pershad and Mr. Morris, a younger brother of the Chief Commissioner, who was a tenant of Gaya Pershad's, on matters connected with the tenancy. Mr. McLean asked Gaya Pershad to reduce his claims on the Raja's estate by 10,000 rupees; he declined. He then asked him to reduce it by 6,000 rupees; he again declined taking less than his decree. Mr. McLean then said he would see if he could not make him do so. His papers and vouchers were then examined, and a receipt for about 200 rupees, written by
1402
one Lall Charran Dass, an agent of the Raja, and bearing the Raja's seal, was said to be a forgery. Whilst the papers were in the hands of Mr. McLean another stamp was put upon the Raja's seal so as to obliterate it, and he was convicted by what appears to have been fabricated evidence. Primâ facie, it was improbable that a man in Gaya Pershad's position, and with a claim of about 100,000 rupees, would have forged a receipt for about 200 rupees. The friend of Gaya Pershad, who endeavoured to obtain relief for him from his ill-treatment in prison, failed to get a hearing, and was driven away with ignominy from the houses of the officials he attempted to see. About January, 1877, a Petition was sent to the Viceroy, in the names of the wife and son of Gaya Pershad, praying for a commutation of his sentence; but the only reply given was that the Chief Commissioner, Mr. Morris, had reported unfavourably upon it. Her Majesty's Ministers speak so little in this House, that we are driven to what are called their extra-Parliamentary utterances in order to ascertain their minds. On the 16th of July last the Secretary of State for India said that West Kent had never been polluted by the representation of a Liberal. He (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had not sufficient experience of electioneering speeches to know if that was according to the usual amenity of language; but he feared that other people, in other places, would apply those words of the noble Viscount to those who sat in the seat of justice. On the 25th of July, at Cooper's Hill, the noble Viscount said that England had given to India "Justice and honesty in high places, and pure Courts established for carrying on litigation." He hoped the Secretary of State would make these words good, and inquire into this case.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that he knew nothing of this case, except what had been communicated to him a few days ago by the noble Lord. According to the statement of the noble Lord, this man had been convicted of forgery in 1874, had since been undergoing his sentence, and had been flogged a certain number of times by the warder. He (Viscount Cranbrook) did not know whether this statement was true or not. He was without information on the subject; and in the most recent Reports with re-

1403
gard to Indian gaols, which came down to 1877, no names of the prisoners were given, Whether this person was still undergoing sentence he (Viscount Cranbrook) had no means of knowing. He could only say that if this man was suffering any wrong the remedy should be sought in India; and he had no doubt that if the friends of this man applied to the Viceroy he would order inquiry to be made.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Two o'clock.