Sitting of 21 April 1882

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Walton Vicarage.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order * [138].
Second Reading—Artillery Ranges* [125], Committee—Municipal Corporations (re-comm.) [113], deferred.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  WALTON VICARAGE BILL (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. CAINE, in moving that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months, said, he would explain as briefly as possible the reasons which induced him to move the Amendment. The Bill dealt with the Vicarage of the parish of Walton-on-the-Hill, in the neighbourhood of Liverpool. The population of the Vicarage and Rectory of Walton was 18,872. In 1871 it was only 6,459, so that the population of the district had trebled during the last 10 years. According to Crockford's Ecclesiastical Directory, the Vicarage was worth £2,100 a-year, and the Rectory £1,000, making a total income together of £3,100 a-year available for the payment of the clergy of the district of the parish of Walton. But he wished to point out to the House that although the population of the parish had so greatly increased from 6,000 to 18,000, there had been no increase whatever in the Church accommodation of the parish during the last 10 years. The present Bill proposed that the Trustees of the Liverpool Bishopric Endowment Fund should be authorized to apply a portion of the fund to the purchase of the advowson of the Vicarage, and also to the benefit of the spiritual interests of the parish. The sum which it was proposed to take from the Liverpool Bishopric Endowment Fund for this purpose was £30,000. The Bishoprics Act of 1878 authorized the foundation of a Bishopric of Liverpool, and directed the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of England to receive all contributions made by the public for the purposes of the endowment of the Bishopric, and to carry the amount of such contributions to a fund to be called the Endowment Fund of the Bishopric. The same Act enacted that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should provide out of the Liverpool Bishopric Fund a net annual income for the Bishop not exceeding £4,200 a-year; and the surplus, if any, was to be applied to the benefit of the

    1085
    spiritual wants of the inhabitants of the parish of Walton. He quite admitted the need of money for the latter purpose, because the present church accommodation of Walton only provided for about 10 per cent of the population; and the Bishop of Liverpool himself, in a charge which he recently delivered in the diocese, stated that it was necessary that 12 new churches should be built in the diocese, and four of them were to be situated within the parish of Walton. The question which would naturally arise, under these circumstances, was, how much money would be available for the spiritual needs of the parishioners of Walton under this Bill? According to the authority of Canon Hume, the present income of the Bishopric amounted to the sum of £3,200 a-year. At some distant period, dependent upon the life of the present Bishop of Chester, a sum of £300 a-year would be added to the income of the See, making altogether £3,500 a-year; but from that was to be deducted the interest upon the purchase money of the advowson—£30,000 at 4 per cent, or £1,200 a-year. Deducting that sum from the Bishopric of Liverpool, outside the Vicarage of Walton only £2,300 a-year would be available for the income of the Bishop; and, therefore, to provide a net annual income of £4,200—the amount proposed by the Bishoprics Act as the maximum amount of the Bishop's stipend—it was clear that £1,900 would have to be taken from the income of the Vicarage of Walton. The income of that Vicarage was stated in The Church Directory to be £2,800 a-year; but he was told by one of the promoters of the Bill that its present value was only £1,500 a-year, and he was unable to say how the figure of £2,800 was arrived at. Perhaps the matter would be explained presently. He was told by the same authority that five years hence—in 1887—the value of the Vicarage would £2,900 a-year, owing to—
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
    The House went;—and being returned;—
    Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to two Bills.

WALTON VICARAGE BILL.
Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. CAINEresuming, said, he had been explaining to the House before the interruption took place that, under the present Bill, it was proposed that the Trustees of the Liverpool Bishopric Fund should purchase the advowson of the Vicarage of the parish of Walton for the sum of £30,000; and he was pointing out the sources from which it was proposed to raise from the Vicarage the income of the Bishop of Liverpool to the sum of £4,200 a-year, and to devote any surplus to the spiritual wants of the parish of Walton. He had also endeavoured to show that if the spiritual wants of the parish were to depend upon this surplus, the spiritual wants of the parish of Walton would come off very badly indeed. The present income of the Bishopric was £3,200, and there would hereafter be a permanent addition of £300 a-year. The money raised as an Endowment Fund was at present invested in Liverpool Dock Bonds for 50 years, at 4 per cent; but from that amount must be deducted the sum of £1,200 a-year, being the interest upon the proposed purchase money of the Vicarage of Walton at 4 per cent. This would leave the income of the Bishopric outside the parish of Walton at £2,300 a-year, and to make up that sum to a total of £4,200 a-year it was clear that £1,900 a-year must be taken from the income of the Vicarage of Walton. That income, on the authority of one of the chief promoters of the Bill, was, at the present moment, only £1,500 a-year; but, in 1887, it would reach £2,900, owing to certain building leases beginning to pay. But the House would see that, for the next five years, the income would actually fall short of the income considered necessary for the Bishopric by the sum of £400 a-year; and seeing that, even after that date, two-thirds of the income were to be given to the Bishop and only one-third to the spiritual wants of the parish of Walton, it certainly did seem that this was simply a scheme to save the pockets of the rich parishioners of Walton and Liverpool by robbing the poor of what ought to be devoted to their spiritual requirements. He also objected to the Bill because it proposed to intrust the Ecclesiastical

1087
Commissioners with functions which Parliament never intended them to perform—namely, the sanctioning of trafficking in Church livings, in the first instance, and the commission of an act of simony in the second. He could not help reflecting how, in the palmy days of Canon Ryle, the suggestion of such a transaction would have been followed by scathing articles in The Rock newspaper. Yet the whole matter appeared to have received the approval of Bishop Ryle, of Liverpool. The object of the present Bill was to deprive the parishioners of some £2,000 a-year, without an attempt being made, as far as he knew, to consult their wishes and feelings on this important subject. If for no other reason than this, he thought the second reading of the Bill ought to be postponed until next Session. It might be quite possible that the co-existence of a Vicar and a Rector in this parish was desirable. He did not profess to understand questions of ecclesiastical policy, and, therefore, he would express no opinion upon that matter; but why, when the Bishop of Liverpool was already in the enjoyment of an income of £3,200 a-year, with a retrospective income of £3,500 a-year, besides a residence worth £500 a-year, the income hitherto devoted to the maintenance of the clergy and to meeting those wants, the neglect of which had hitherto been so deeply deplored by the very Bishop who now proposed to annex these funds for his own use, he was at a loss to understand. He hoped the House would refuse to give a second reading to the Bill, if only for the purpose of enabling zealous Churchmen to bring in a better Bill, dealing with the parish of Walton as the parish of Roch-dale was dealt with some time ago, and to devote the whole of the funds of the Vicarage to the provision of those churches which the Bishop of Liverpool declared to be so greatly needed in the parish of Walton. Such a proposition would certainly receive his hearty support. He had no doubt that the owner of the advowson would be as willing to sell for this better purpose as for the ecclesiastical job which the present Bill proposed to perpetrate. If not, and it was still found desirable to purchase the advowson of the Vicarage, let the income derived from the purchase go towards the reduction of the rates of the City of Liverpool, which city, he be-
1088
lieved, once formed part of the parish of Walton-on-the-Hill, and from which a large sum of money was now annually taken for the purpose of maintaining Corporation churches up and down Liverpool in districts from which the population had long since been withdrawn. In his opinion, this Bill ought never to have been brought in as a Private Bill at all; and he regretted to say that it appeared to be only too easy to smuggle Private Bills through the House, unknown to anybody except the officers of the House and one or two individual Members. He should have thought that any measure so deeply affecting the National Church would have been of interest, not only to every Member of the House, but to the public generally. Bills which proposed to job away a large sum of public money ought to be dealt with by the whole House, and not by the hole-and-corner method of a Private Bill. He thought the time had arrived when something should be done to secure that copies of all Private Bills should be delivered to Members with the ordinary Votes of the day, so that all of them might know what proposals they contained. He begged now to move, as an Amendment to the second reading of the Bill, that it be read a second time on that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Caine.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) that it was a somewhat strange proceeding that a proposal of this character should be brought before the House in the guise of a Private Bill. It was a Bill which dealt not only with the property of a National Institution, but with a subject which, in the judgment of all of them, was of infinitely higher importance—namely, the suppression of a sacred office in the National Church. It appeared that in the case of the parish of Walton there was a Rectory and a Vicarage, and the minds of some people there might be a little inconvenience in a possible clashing of authority, although there was no evidence that hitherto that had been the case, or that any difficulties

1089
had arisen between the Rector and the Vicar. But supposing that it was the case, or supposing that there was some infinitely weightier reason than a possible collision between the Rector and the Vicar, then he submitted to the House that in this, as in a number of other cases of the same character where the ecclesiastical functions had grown too large, there ought to be a subdivision of the district for spiritual purposes, and that separate jurisdiction should be given to these different ecclesiastical personages so as to prevent the possibility of a collision or clashing of duties hereafter. He thought the House would be acting wisely in rejecting the second reading of the Bill on this ground alone, seeing that it was dealing with the National Church and with a large national property. [Mr. WARTON: No! and other hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!] He was delighted at the interruption, or that any doubt should be thrown upon the question whether the Institution they were discussing was a National Church, because he would infinitely prefer that there should be declared ignorance rather than concealed ignorance upon the question. No doubt, it was an interesting question whether the Established Church was a National Institution or not. He could only imagine that the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Warton) foresaw that there might be great inconvenience in making the admission, or he would not have ventured to interrupt him (Mr. Illingworth) by challenging his assertion that the Established Church of the country was as much a National Institution as the Army and Navy, because, if there were substantial grounds for saying that that was not the case, he (Mr. Illingworth) thought that Parliament and the country itself would very soon ask another and a very pertinent question—namely, why the affairs of one sect in the country were to be obtruded so persistently upon Parliament, instead of being settled out-of-doors like those of any other religious denomination. He held that the main distinction between a National Church and other religious Bodies was that the affairs of the latter were settled outside the walls of Parliament, while the affairs of a National Church were with propriety brought before Parliament, and settled nowhere else. He therefore ventured to think that, what-
1090
ever might be the legal form suggested by this procedure, there were very strong objections to dealing with the property and the affairs of a National Church in the form of a Private Bill. Before going further, he wished to ask this simple question—If it were justifiable, as an arrangement fitting to be arrived at by means of a Private Bill, to suppress a Vicarage for the care of souls, why might they not have a process for disestablishing and disendowing one-half of the parishes of the country by means of thousands of Private Bills? If it were proper and fitting that such a measure should be introduced in the one case, he certainly knew of no reason why the same process should not be carried out in all. If the Rector was willing to sell the living in one case, why should not other persons similarly situated dispose of their livings? The circumstances in the present case were somewhat curious. The Rector was the patron of the Vicarage of Walton, and he was the individual who was going to pocket this £28,000 or £30,000—certainly, a very anomalous transaction in connection with a Private Bill. He had no doubt there were many other patrons who would be very willing to sell the property they possessed upon similar terms—and without much regard to the danger of the suppression of the care of souls in the district where the transaction took place, seeing that no provision was made for supplying another living in the place of the one disposed of. What he desired now was to point out to the House, and through the House to the country, the danger there was, in a transaction of this very doubtful character, of suppressing altogether a public office for the cure of souls by means of a Private Bill, and through an arrangement between the patron and those who desired to obtain a benefit from the transaction. He hoped, before the debate was brought to a close, to find some hon. Member take part in it who was acknowledged by the House to be, in some sense, a special guardian of the interests and reputation of the National Church; and he was anxious to know whether any such hon. Member was prepared to come forward and justify this system of the sale of Church I patronage, and of associating with it a dignitary of the highest character in the National Church? If it was justifiable

1091
in one case that the patronage should be sold, then he wanted to know what justification there could be for the Bill of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope), by which the hon. Gentleman proposed to interfere with this system of the sale of patronage? He was aware that there had been Committees and Commissions, which had reported upon the evils to the National Church, and upon the mischief to religion generally, which arose from this mode of trafficking in sacred offices. They need not wonder at what took place among men who had no other object in view than finding investments for their money, when they found Rectors and Bishops of the Church of England indulging in this traffic themselves—or, at any rate, countenancing it. They had seen in that House during the present Session considerable anxiety shown lest the House should do some injury to religion by the admission of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). He appealed to those hon. Gentlemen, who were, no doubt, very sincere, or, at any rate, very zealous, in their guardianship of religion, that they should go into the Lobby with his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) against the second reading of this Bill; for he ventured to say that if the matter now before the House were to become as well known throughout the country as the celebrated case of the hon. Member for Northampton, infinitely greater injury would be done to religion and to the Established Church of the country than anything that would be done by the introduction of half-a-dozen Mr. Bradlaughs into the House. There were some incidents about this matter that he thought the House would probably like to have the details of. How was it that now-a-days ecclesiastical property could be brought so openly into the financial market that even so large a sum as £30,000 was ready to be given for it? He thought it was to be explained by the fact that the present Vicar was 85 years of age, and that, therefore, the Bishop of Liverpool would not be called upon to wait very long before he came into possession of any pecuniary advantage which the transaction might confer upon him. He was not there to say whether or not in regard to a Bishop it was necessary that he should live in a Palace; but he was willing to admit
1092
that if he did live in a Palace he must have a Princely income. No doubt there was, in the minds of Churchmen, a feeling that a Bishop should take his station among the wealthiest and the highest in the land. But when this Bishopric of Liverpool was established the public were given to understand that zealous and wealthy Episcopalians were going to provide the funds, and that there was not likely to be brought before the House of Commons a transaction of such a shameful character as the one they were now engaged in discussing, in order that the pockets of the wealthy West Lancashire gentry might not be further drawn on. As he understood the matter, the maximum sum fixed for the income of the Bishop of Liverpool was £4,200 a-year. Why, then, were they flagging in their energies in providing the stipulated amount? Had they a pastor who was not deserving of their confidence? That could scarcely be the case, for they all knew that Canon Ryle was a sincere, a zealous, and a very able Churchman; and, further, that, on becoming Bishop of Liverpool, he placed himself literally among the people there, in the confidence that they would do complete justice to him. The question now was, were they going to fail the Bishop of Liverpool? Were they going to ask the House to be parties to so gross a transaction as the buying of a living and the suppression of a cure of souls? It had already been shown by his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) that there was already a largely-increasing population in the parish of Walton, for which no other ecclesiastical provision was made. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Illingworth) appealed with confidence to the House to reject the Bill. He was satisfied that if the House refused to read the Bill a second time, the vast majority of the people of this country—not only those connected with the Established Church, but those without her pale—would commend the course which the House would take.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I am quite sure that the hon. Member who has just sat down has really not studied this question, and that he cannot be at all aware of the wants of the particular locality of which he has been speaking. We are extremely grateful to him, as a Nonconformist Member of this House,

1093
for the interest he apparently takes in the welfare of the Established Church. ["Hear, hear!" and a laugh.] I say that quite sincerely, although probably there are some hon. Gentlemen who do not echo the sentiment. There are, however, a great number of persons who do take a very sincere interest in the welfare of this parish, who have gone very closely into the question, and who know the "ins" and "outs" of the whole matter; and they, having the best means of judging, have come to a distinctly opposite conclusion to that at which the hon. Member has arrived. I must say I think their opinion is entitled to very considerable weight. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) seems to have forgotten a very important circumstance in the case. It is quite true that there is a Rector of Walton, and a Vicar of Walton, and the Vicarage of Walton and the Advowson of Walton belong to the Vicar, and nobody can interfere with his right to them. If the Vicar and his family choose to keep the Vicarage in perpetuity they can do so, and he cannot be called upon to perform any further duties than he has hitherto performed; nor can he be called upon to sell the advowson, nor to divide the two livings for the benefit of the parish of Walton, as the hon. Member seems to think would be the case in the event of a vacancy arising. Therefore, it is altogether out of the power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or of Parliament to make any alteration in the state of things which now exists. In the parish of Walton there is a Rector with a very considerable income, and if this Bill passes that income will be increased, because certain fees will be handed over to him. The Vicarage is to be sold, and part of the proceeds are to be devoted to the benefit of the Rector. Therefore, the position of the Rector will be improved by the sale, and, with the improvement of the position of the Rector, so also will his power to provide for the spiritual wants of the parish be increased. I now come to the question, what is to be done with the Vicarage? It happens that those persons who have looked into the matter have been able to make an arrangement with the Vicar under which he is willing to sell the advowson of the Vicarage for a certain amount of money—I believe £28,000.
MR. ILLINGWORTH: Is it not the Rector who is the patron, and not the Vicar?
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes; the Rector is the patron, and he is willing to sell the avowson of the Vicarage for the sum, I believe, of £28,000. Then, what is to be done with the proceeds of the sale of this living? Where is the money to come from? The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) seems to think that by this proceeding we shall save the pockets of the rich men of Lancashire. We shall do nothing of the kind. The men of Lancashire have established the Bishopric of Liverpool under the sanction of an Act of Parliament. They have subscribed a certain income. But the Act says that the Bishop may have a larger income, up to £4,200 a-year. What is now proposed by this Bill is to give part of the money subscribed for this purpose to the purchase of the advowson of the Vicarage of Walton, and so to apply the income of the advowson as to be able, out of the proceeds of the purchase, to raise the income of the Bishopric of Liverpool to the full extent of the £4,200 a-year provided by the Act, and which is in no way too large a sum, considering the enormous calls the Bishop will have upon him in such a diocese. Moreover, in a short time the provisions of the Bill will enable more than £1,000 a-year to be available for the benefit of the parish of Walton, in such a manner as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may think fit. Not only will the See of Liverpool be greatly improved and increased in value, but the parish of Walton itself will derive an advantage which, under the existing arrangements, it is impossible for it to obtain so long as this Vicarage is not sold. I have no wish to take up the time of the House by making any lengthened statement of my own, and I have stated the facts of the case as shortly as I can. It must be remembered that in the present state of things you cannot compel the sale of the Vicarage at all. You must either leave things to remain as they are, or else carry out this arrangement. I believe I have shown that the proposed arrangement will be beneficial, not only to the See of Liverpool, but eventually to the interests of the inhabitants of the parish of Walton themselves. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) confesses that he knows nothing about

1095
the circumstances of the case. It so happens that the Bill has been advertised in all the local papers and elsewhere, and it is a remarkable fact that not a single Petition has been presented by an inhabitant of Walton against the passing of the measure. Surely, the local people are those best able to form an opinion as to the merits of a Bill of this character. It is not, as the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) described, a Bill for the suppression of a living. There will always be a living in the parish of Walton. The Rectory will remain; and the passing of this Bill will, as I have already said, not only benefit the See of Liverpool, but it will make more adequate provision for the wants of the parish of Walton.
MR. ILLINGWORTHasked how, if the Vicarage was got rid of, it could be said that a living for the cure of souls had not been suppressed?
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: The Rector has the same cure of souls as the Vicar; both livings are enjoyed by the same person, and the Rector will still remain.
MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: Some of my hon. Friends have raised an objection to this Bill, which I think ought to be clearly explained to the House. They say they consider that a Bill of this character ought to have been a Public and not a Private Bill. Now, I think that this is a mistake on their parts, and that it would not have been possible to bring it in as a Public Bill. It deals with an advowson which has a beneficial value. The advowson belongs to the Rector, and it is vested in him. This Bill, therefore, is practically an Estate Bill, and as an Estate Bill it must be brought before both Houses of Parliament in the form of a Private Bill. Some confusion did exist in my own mind in regard to the effect of the Bill, until I made an inquiry both from the promoters and from the opponents as to the circumstances of the case. I find that there is no suppression of the cure of souls at all. There is only a single church in which there is a co-ordinate Vicar and a Rector, and each of them has the same charge of the cure of souls in the district church to which they are attached. The church is not to be suppressed by this Bill; but it will be continued with a much larger sum available for its support, so that the Rector
1096
can employ more curates to discharge the duties connected with the church. Without this Estate Bill there would be no surplus funds for the promotion of ecclesiastical purposes in the parish; but under the provisions of this measure there will be about £1,000 a-year available for the extension of church accommodation and the appointment of additional curates within the district. It is, as I have said, simply an Estate Bill, which takes a sum of £28,000 out of the subscriptions now invested at 3¾ per cent, and invests the same £28,000 in an estate which will pay 5½ per cent. I have looked into the matter very carefully. I believe that the measure has been properly introduced as a Private Bill, and, as it is quite regular in form, I think the second reading ought to receive the support of the House.
MR. ILLINGWORTHasked if the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Lyon Playfair) would explain whether the Bill did not sanction the suppression of a living and the sale of the income to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for the purposes of the Bishopric of Liverpool Endowment Fund?
MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: I have already explained that the Bill does not in reality suppress any church.
MR. CROPPERwished to say one word in regard to the statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross). There appeared to him (Mr. Cropper) to be a mistake in regard to the whole of the matter. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) seemed to think that there was an endeavour on the part of the promoters of the Bill to do something unfair, and something that was antagonistic to the ordinary course of procedure in regard to Church livings. But the statement of the right hon. Gentleman put the matter quite plain. If this sum of £28,000 was not expended in the way proposed, the living might be simply sold in the open market, and neither the See of Liverpool nor the parish of Walton would derive any advantage from it whatever. The whole case simply resolved itself into a matter whereby a large and valuable living would be divided without the slightest harm to anybody, and to the general advantage. He disliked the sale of Church patronage as much as anybody; but he

1097
certainly felt inclined to regard this as an exceptional case. At any rate, it would prevent the recurrence of the scandal which, in many men's eyes, was attached to the sale of livings, as this advowson could now never again come into the market. Instead of the proposed arrangement being, as the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) said, a disgrace to the City of Liverpool, he thought it would be of great advantage to Liverpool, and to the parish of Walton also. He should, therefore, give his vote in favour of the second reading of the Bill.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 76: Majority 84.—(Div. List, No. 67.)
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. J. O'KEANE AND OTHERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Connaught Telegraph" of the 8th instant, stating that a warrant issued fourteen months ago, for the arrest of Mr. John O'Keane, of Claremorris, has been cancelled, Mr. O'Keane having meanwhile resided in England; if it is correct that a warrant was issued against Mr. O'Keane as stated; and, if so, upon what grounds; whether it has been cancelled; if so, why, and by what means, and through what channel, this fact was conveyed to Mr. O'Keane; whether it is the fact that a warrant was issued about the same time for the arrest of Mr. P. W. Nally, of Balla; if so, upon what grounds; whether Mr. Nally also went to reside out of Ireland; whether this warrant has been recently cancelled, and upon what grounds; and, whether Mr. Nally has now returned to Ireland; if so, through what channel the fact that he might return with safefy was communicated to him?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, in each of the cases referred to warrants had been issued and were still in force. In each case an intimation was conveyed to the individual that his return to Ireland would not be interfered with pro-
  1098
  vided he conducted himself. In the case of Mr. Keane it was represented that he was in bad health and had been recommended to try his native air; while in Mr. Nally's case it was represented that his father had broken his leg.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—VISITS TO PRISONERS UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has inquired into the subject of visits to suspects; and, whether he has been able to make arrangements for increasing the facilities for such visits, especially in Kilmainham, by providing sufficient warders to enable a larger number of visits to take place simultaneously, so that the prisoners may have the full benefit of the rule which permits them to receive one visit each every day?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had inquired into this matter, and he found that there was no ground for complaint. With regard to the other prisons in which "suspects" were detained, he found that arrangements had been made to admit of a sufficient number of visits.
  MR. REDMONDinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to a letter which appeared in The Freeman's Journal, signed by a number of friends of "suspects," complaining of the inconvenience they had to suffer when trying to see their friends?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he saw nothing of that letter.

  POST OFFICE—TRANSMISSION OF LAND LEAGUE PORTRAITS.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Postmaster General, Whether parcels containing copies of a picture entitled "The Irish Nation, 1882," with portraits of twenty-three of the leaders of the Land League movement have been interfered with by the Government in their passage through the post, and delivered in a mutilated condition; and, if so, whether he has sanctioned such interference; whether there is any difficulty in securing the safe passage through the post of roller-shaped envelopes 17½ inches in length; and, whether he will inquire into the injury done to these pictures?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that, after making inquiries, I find that at the Post Office nothing is known of the matter to which he refers. I may add that packets of the shape described by the hon. Member, unless provided with a strong roller, would be very apt to be doubled up, and thus sustain injury in transit.

  POST OFFICE—DETENTION OF LAND LEAGUE LETTERS.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is a fact that letters addressed to the general secretary of the Irish National Land League of Great Britain in London have been opened and detained in their passage through the post; and, whether the warrant of the Home Secretary is being used to examine letters addressed to the officers of that association?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I can only give the same reply as I have given before, that it would not be consonant with my duty to give any information upon this subject. At the same time, in giving that answer, I must also say, as I have said before, that it implies no admission in regard to any warrant issued for these purposes.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—EXPENSES OF CROWN WITNESSES.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that a promise made to pay Ex-Sub-Constable Walshe's expenses has not yet been carried out; whether it is the fact that, although Dr. Michael O'Brien, now a suspect in Limerick Gaol, was obliged to attend Cork Winter Assizes for seventeen days on a Crown subpœna, Mr. Murphy, Crown Solicitor, refused to pay him anything; and, whether there is any reason for the continued detention of Dr. O'Brien?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): As to ex-Sub-Constable Walshe, there was a question whether he was to be paid out of the Law Charges Vote or under the Constabulary Regulations; this has been settled, and the account of his allowances was made out and received in the Constabulary Office last Tuesday from the County Inspector, and, having
  1100
  been examined, was transmitted for payment by the next post. As to Dr. O'Brien, he attended at the Cork Winter Assizes, not as Crown witness nor as a medical witness, but as a witness for persons who were charged with obstructing a sheriff and other criminal offences, and for the purpose of proving that they had not committed the offences of which they were accused. During the progress of the Assizes he was repeatedly in company with his friends, who were on bail, and thus he had an ample opportunity of knowing the course they intended to take. They pleaded "guilty." Dr. O'Brien, therefore, was not a necessary witness to prove that they had not committed the offences, to the committal of which they pleaded guilty, and the Crown Solicitor consequently could not certify that Dr. O'Brien was a necessary witness, and for that reason had no authority to allow him any expenses. With reference to the last Question, as Dr. O'Brien is still in detention, I take it for granted there is good reason for it; but that is a Question to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MAJOR WALLER ASHE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as reported in the "Morning Post," that
  "the name of Major Waller-Ashe, late King's Dragoon Guards, and late Deputy Governor of Her Majesty's General Prison for Scotland at Perth, has been placed upon the list for the appointment of resident magistrate in Ireland;"
  and, if so, whether he made previous inquiry into the past life of Major Waller-Ashe?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that there was no truth in the statement as to the appointment of Major Waller-Ashe to be a Resident Magistrate in Ireland. What had happened was this—He was informed that Major Waller-Ashe had sent in an application in the usual way, and the usual answer was made that it would be sent to the Lord Lieutenant for consideration. There had been no intention of actually appointing Major Waller-Ashe; and, therefore, no necessity of making any inquiries respecting
  him.

  PRIVATE (HYBRID) BILLS—FORTH BRIDGE RAILWAY BILL.
  MR. BOLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is intended to order that all Petitioners against the Forth Bridge Railway Bill, whose Petitions have been deposited, or may be deposited, within three days of the meeting of the Committee, may be heard by Counsel, Agents, and witness; and, if not, why this course, which is generally adopted in respect of Bills referred to a hybrid Committee, is not to be followed in the present case?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I intend on Monday to move for extending the period in which Petitions against the Forth Bridge Railway Bill may be lodged and the Petitioners heard, but limiting it to Petitions relating to navigation and the safety of the bridge as to construction, both of which questions the Board of Trade are anxious to have carefully inquired into, and that every opportunity may be given to people to bring their cases before the Committee. But it would be a strong measure to extend the time as the hon. Member suggests; because that would be interfering with the discretion of the Referees and the Committee as to the locus standi of Petitioners who might appear merely on grounds of competition. In 1873, when this bridge was sanctioned by Parliament, the present Bill being merely a continuation, the Referees limited the locus standi of the Caledonian Railway, excluding the ground of competition. I think my hon. Friend is in error in his view that the course he recommends is always adopted in reference to Bills referred to a Hybrid Committee. It is generally adopted in regard to Hybrid Bills; but this is not a Hybrid Bill, but a Private Bill which happens to be referred to a Hybrid Committee.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ANDREW AND PATRICK GALLAHER.
  MR. LALORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it be true that, on the 16th of October last, Andrew Gallaher, and his brother, Patrick Gallaher, of Bally-brittas, in the Queen's County, were arrested on a charge of having, on the
  1102
  previous night, fired at and wounded a number of men in the employment of the Emergency Committee, and who, at the time, were engaged in removing a threshing machine from one farmer's place to another, along the public road; if it be true that the charge against the said Andrew and Patrick Gallaher was more than once investigated in private, by the local magistrates, in the County Gaol in Maryborough; if it be true that, on the last occasion when such investigation took place, the magistrates decided to discharge the two Messrs. Gallaher, as there was no evidence to connect them with the crime; if it be true that when the two Messrs. Gallaher had proceeded so far as the gate leading from the gaol they were arrested on a warrant under the Coercion Act, charging them with a totally different offence, namely, inciting others to an act of intimidation; and, if it be true that the said Andrew and Patrick Gallaher were then and there conveyed to Naas Gaol, where they are still detained under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; the facts are, I believe, as stated in the Question.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARRESTS UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the number of arrests which have been made under the Coercion Act of last year up to the 18th day of the present month?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The total number of arrests up to the 18th instant is 918.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that the Land Sub-Commissioners held their first sitting in Tullamore on the 23rd of January last to hear applications for fixing fair rents for that district; that since then they had not visited Tullamore, nor given any notification of their intention to do so, although very harsh cases of eviction for no more than half a-year's arrear of rent have taken place on neighbouring properties, as at Geashill,

  1103
  and that after notice had been given to apply for a judicial rent; and, what steps he proposes to take in this matter to prevent the Act being rendered useless in this district?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he was informed that there would be a sitting in Tullamore upon the 26th of June, and that this fact was set forth in the Circular, a copy of which could be obtained by anyone on applying to the Secretary of the Commissioners. In every case in which a notice for the fixing of a fair rent had been lodged and decided upon, if the tenant was dissatisfied with the decision, the case would be immediately sent for trial upon his application to that extent. An application for the extension of the period for redemption could also be considered.

  ISLAND OF CYPRUS—GRANT OF A CONSTITUTION—THE DESPATCH.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Despatch published in Cyprus, purporting to grant a Constitution to that Island, will be laid before Parliament, as well as the Correspondence relating thereto; if so, when?
  MR. COURTNEY: The despatch in question will be immediately laid before Parliament, and we hope soon to present further Papers containing correspondence, not only on the Constitutional question, but also relating to the reorganization of the judicial system of the Island, which is in an advanced state of preparation.
  MR. RYLANDSasked if the Papers would include one giving information with respect to the administration of the Island?
  MR. COURTNEYreplied, that that Paper would be among those he had referred to.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA—FREE EMIGRATION.
  SIR JAMES LAWRENCEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If his attention has been called to the desire expressed by numbers of unemployed working men for emigration to the Colonies; whether there is an agreement still existing with Western Australia, by which this Country has undertaken to provide free passages
  1104
  for more than a thousand emigrants to that Colony; and, if he will consider whether the present time is opportune for carrying out such agreement?
  MR. COURTNEY: A similar Question was raised by my hon. Friend three years since and again last year, and my answer must be substantially the same as those which have been given him on former occasions. The Question whether this country is under any obligation by agreement to provide free passages for emigrants to Western Australia was fully considered in 1869 and decided in the negative.
  SIR JAMES LAWRENCEgave Notice that he should move for a Return giving the Correspondence.

  INDIA—ROORKEE COLLEGE.
  MR. PUGHasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he can inform the House of the number of students who have entered the Civil Engineering College at Roorkee for the last three years, and the number of appointments made to the Indian Public Works Department from the College during the same period?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, he was sorry he could not give the information without telegraphing to India. A certain number of appointments were reserved, and he could not state how they had been filled up.

  OFFICIAL APPOINTMENTS—MR. R. S. MITFORD.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that he has appointed his private secretary, Mr. R. S. Mitford, a Commissioner of Prisons; what is Mr. Mitford's age and length of public service; and, what experience has he had in the duties which he will be called upon to perform?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is true that I have appointed my private secretary, Mr. R. S. Mitford, a Commissioner of Prisons. I cannot say what is his age; but I am afraid it is one which I might envy. As to the length of his public service, he was 14 years in the Criminal Department of the Home Office. My first acquaintance with Mr. Mitford was when I took Office. I found him there the able and tried private secretary of my Predecessor (Sir

  1105
  R. Assheton Cross); and I think the greatest proof I could offer of my confidence in him was that I appointed him my chief private secretary. He had been private secretary to four successive Home Secretaries, which everyone who has been in Office knows is about the best training a man can have in official business. Mr. Mitford was thoroughly conversant with the Criminal Department of the Home Office; and the whole business of the Department, since the present system has been established by my Predecessor, has come under his notice and knowledge. I appointed Mr. Mitford because I thought he was entitled to promotion, and in doing so I made the greatest personal sacrifice. I believe the right hon. Gentleman opposite and everyone who knows the Home Office, and who may have transacted business with Mr. Mitford, will bear testimony to his great capacity, and the admirable manner in which he discharged his duties.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that I shall ask on Monday whether there are not in Her Majesty's Service other officers—namely, the Inspectors of Prisons—who are equally conversant with the Prison Service, and equally deserving of promotion?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think I had better say at once that I have felt, without casting any reflection on anyone, that it is not desirable that the prison organization of this country should be made exclusively a military organization. I have the greatest respect for, and confidence in, the military men at present in the Prison Service; but I consider it of very great importance that the prison organization of the country should have a civilian as well as a military element.
  MR. HEALY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recommend the Irish Office to appoint the Resident Magistrates in Ireland on the same principles?
  [No answer was given.]

  ARMY—THE ROYAL WARRANT, 1881.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an officer who held the substantive rank of Major before 1st November 1871, but who had
  1106
  not been a Regimental Major, is excluded from the benefit of Article 978—XII. of the Royal Warrant of the 25th June 1881; and, if so, whether such Article is not, in that respect, entirely different from paragraph 80 of the Memorandum laid before Parliament in June 1881?
  MR CHILDERS: No, Sir; I have looked into the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I cannot see any difference in this respect between the Memorandum and the Warrant. Any Colonel retiring under the Warrant who was a substantive field officer before the 1st of November, 1871, can have his case dealt with by the Purchase Commissioners under the clause which the hon. and gallant Member quotes.

  ARMY—PAYMENT OF PENSIONS.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Secretary of State for War, If he is aware that the pensioners at Plymouth and Devonport, whose money should have been paid three weeks ago, are still unpaid, thereby causing much inconvenience and suffering; and, whether he will at once take steps to meet the complaints of the pensioners and provide in future for paying them regularly?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. Friend, I can only say that the delay which has occurred in paying the pensioners at Plymouth has led to an officer being specially sent down to inquire into its cause, and to expedite the payments. The paying officers had full authority to obtain whatever clerical assistance they might require in starting the new system, and I cannot account for the small number of payments at this station.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE RIOTS AT CAMBORNE.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as reported in the "Cornish Telegraph" of Thursday 20th instant, that, on Tuesday last, a riot occurred at Camborne, Cornwall, which began in an attempt to stone two Irishmen who were in the custody of the police; that the houses of the Irish in the town were wrecked, and the property in them destroyed and several of their occupants brutally ill-used, that, in one case, a poor old woman who had been bedridden for a couple of years was pulled

  1107
  from her bed and left writhing in agony on the floor; that an attack was made on the Catholic Chapel, and that,—
  "First the windows were smashed in, then, after repeated efforts, the doors were forced. Inside, the rioters lost all control of themselves, and did most wanton damage. They broke up the crucifixes and pictures; the image of the Virgin Mary was torn from its place, thrown amongst the mob, and trampled to pieces. The confessional-box was speedily converted into fire-wood. The altar and its fittings were torn down, and the gaseliers were broken off, and the organ destroyed—the scene within the Church beggaring description;"
  whether any of the rioters have been arrested; and, whether any steps have been taken to protect the life and property of the Irish residents in Camborne and to restore law and order in that town?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, his official knowledge—and he could not go beyond that—was furnished by a letter from the Chief Constable, in which it was stated that every precaution had been taken to prevent future disturbance and the repetition of these disgraceful scenes of riot. He had addressed to the Justices' clerk, from whom, also, he had a communication, a letter of inquiry as to whether any measures had been taken to arrest the rioters, and to punish them for the outrages they had committed. He had, of course, received no answer to that letter.
  MR. LEAMY: Is the report from The Cornish Telegraph substantially correct or not?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not state. He had no knowledge whatever, except the letter he received yesterday, which gave no details.
  MR. BELLINGHAMasked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had any knowledge of the renewal of the rioting as reported in this evening's papers?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had no knowledge.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he would repeat his Questions on Monday. If such riots occurred in Ireland they should have had all the details immediately.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE ASSISTANT SUB-COMMISSIONERS (KERRY AND WEST CORK).
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had intended to ask the First Lord of the Treasury,
  1108
  Whether he is aware that the greatest local dissatisfaction exists at the decisions given by Messrs. McDevitt, Walpole, and Murphy, on the Kerry and West Cork Sub-Commission; whether it is the fact that the rents which they have fixed as fair rents are in some cases double Griffith's valuation; and, whether he proposes to take any steps to remove this dissatisfaction? Perhaps the Chief Secretary could answer the Question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the Land Commissioners informed him that they had no knowledge of any special dissatisfaction. Seventy-one appeals had been lodged against the decisions of these gentlemen—39 by landlords and the balance by tenants. The Land Commissioners would sit at Killarney shortly for the purpose of hearing those appeals. It was true that the rents fixed in some cases were over Griffith's valuation, and three of those cases had been listed for appeal—two by landlords, and one by the tenant.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that, in consequence of the answer he had received, he should call attention to the composition and decisions of the Sub-Commissioners for Kerry and West Cork, and move a Resolution.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked what Business it was proposed to take at the Morning Sitting on Tuesday?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: We propose on Monday, after the Budget, to proceed with the second reading of the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt Practices) Bill. The same Bill will be proceeded with at the Morning Sitting on Tuesday.
  MR. GORSTasked whether the House would give a decision to-night on the question as to whether there should be a Morning Sitting?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he should to-night formally move that the Municipal Corporations Bill should be fixed for Tuesday, for the purpose of enabling the House to come to a decision as to the question of a Morning Sitting. The Corrupt Practices Bill would, however, be proceeded with on. Tuesday.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN: Will there be Morning Sittings every Tuesday?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes, Sir.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MISS KIRK.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Miss Kirk, sister of the ex-Member for the county of Louth, who had gone to Tulla to assist in the erection of huts for the evicted tenants, was yesterday arrested by Mr. Clifford Lloyd and sent for three months to gaol?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had no information on the subject; the hon. Member should give Notice of his Question?

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPOINTMENT OF A SUB-COMMISSIONER.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If Mr. J. R. Hedigan, who has lately been appointed an Assistant Commissioner under the Land Act, is the same gentleman whose tenants in Tipperary are taking proceedings against him?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in reply, said, it was not a matter coming within his Department.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would ask the Question on Monday.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE AMERICAN CITIZENS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Papers containing the Correspondence with the United States Government would be published? He asked the Question, seeing that the Correspondence had already been published in America.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Correspondence published in America is not the recent Correspondence, but Correspondence which took place some time ago. It cannot possibly be the Correspondence which is going on now. I cannot yet name a day when the Cor-
  1110
  respondence can be produced; but I may be able to do so if the Question be repeated.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Will all the Correspondence be included—last year's as well as the recent Correspondence?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: If Notice be given of the Question, I will look into the Correspondence of last year.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—TUESDAYS—THE SETTLED LAND BILL.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwished to say, with reference to the commencement of Tuesday Sittings, that the Settled Land Bill, which came down from the other House before Easter, had been placed in his charge, and no effort should be wanting on his part to take the decision of the House upon it. He hoped that, if the Government proposed to take all the remaining Tuesdays of the Session, they would make some arrangement by which it could be discussed.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—TUESDAYS—THE JESUS COLLEGE STATUTES.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, that he had on the Paper for Tuesday, the 2nd of May, a Motion with reference to statutes for Jesus College. They were laid on the Table of the House for three months, in order that the House might consider them. If he were precluded by a Morning Sitting being taken on the 2nd of May from bringing on the Motion he should have no opportunity of calling attention to the subject, and the House would have no opportunity of considering it, unless the Government gave up some time for the purpose. It would, therefore, be his duty to protest against the Morning Sitting.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

COOPER'S HILL COLLEGE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. GIBSON, in rising to call attention to Cooper's Hill College; and to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the working and expense of Cooper's Hill College, and to report if it is desirable, for the public service, to retain the present system, or whether any and, if so, what changes and modifications should be made,"
  said, it was not his desire to make any charges against the managers of the Institution; but it had been in full working order for 11 years, and that time ought to have furnished enough experience to justify the inquiry whether the system with which the College was identified was worth its cost; whether it was necessary for the Public Service; and whether there was any well-founded objection to some return to a system of public competition? It was in November, 1869, that the Duke of Argyll, who was then Secretary of State for India, determined to establish the College, and that determination was arrived at without any communication whatever with the then Government of India, or with the Institution of Civil Engineers. The system at that time in existence was inaugurated by Lord Stanley, the present Earl of Derby, who introduced free competition for the purpose of procuring Civil Engineers for the Indian Service. Before the foundation of the College the Civil Engineers were only given subordinate positions, and their pay was comparatively low. How they were treated might be inferred from a statement of Sir Andrew Clarke, who was a Member of the Governor General's Council, and who, in a Minute, dated 1877, said it was impossible to suggest that Civil Engineers had failed to satisfy the requirements of the Civil Service, because they had never been fairly tried, as they were only appointed at small pay to the position of third-grade Civil Engineers; whereas the Cooper's Hill gentlemen at once received more than double the pay of the Stanley Engineers, and were placed in a much higher grade. When the Government of India did hear of the determination of the Duke of Argyll to establish the College, they certainly did not express anything which could be construed into approval. They
  1112
  said they considered the success of such a College must be a matter of very great uncertainty; that it must be regarded entirely as an experiment; and that they had great doubt whether any real necessity existed for it. They felt it incumbent on them to express their strong sense of the inexpediency of adopting measures that should lead to the creation of a class of engineers for the service of India; and they believed that such an Institution would be open to condemnation if it were not conducted on a self-supporting basis. The Institution of Civil Engineers—an Institution deservedly esteemed—expressed the opinion that in the proposed College the minds of the pupils would be moulded in the same form, and that their training would develop none of the emulation, independence, and originality of resource which had produced the best engineers. It was a grave decision for the Duke of Argyll to take—to destroy the system introduced by his Predecessor, and to substitute that of Coopers' Hill College. Notwithstanding this, however, the College was established, and from 1871 it had enjoyed a practical monopoly in engineering appointments in India over all the other Engineering Institutions. It was said that in India the Civil Engineers were given the hard work to do, and that the Royal Engineers took the honours and the higher pay. But he was not going into that ground of jealousy between the two branches of the Profession. It was, he maintained, exceedingly unfair on the other Institutions, and on the Universities which had established Engineering Schools, to exclude from the possibility of serving on Indian Public Works many young men—not because they were not qualified, not because they had not a valuable engineering diploma, but because they had not happened to pass through the portals of Cooper's Hill College. From a Return which had been kindly granted, at his instance, by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, he gathered that in 1878 the expenditure was £20,427, and the receipts £18,254; thus showing a loss to the Exchequer of something over £2,000. If, however, they looked at the results of the following years, they would find that the loss increased, and that in 1880–1, against an expenditure of £19,812, they only had receipts to the amount of £15,226,

  1113
  or nearly double the loss of the previous year. Thus, so far from the Institution being self-supporting, as was the intention of its original promoters, it was carried on at an absolute loss to the nation; and he was not aware that this increased cost in any way meant increased efficiency, for in 1879 there were only 37 admissions, in 1880 only 25, and in 1881, under a new scheme, 39. But these figures were the more startling when it was remembered that Cooper's Hill had practically the monopoly of all the Indian appointments, with the exception of those which were given to the Royal Engineers. In 1879, 41 public appointments were conferred upon the students, though the entrances of students only amounted to 37. This showed that every young man who entered the College was perfectly sure of getting an appointment of more or less value. This was borne out by the figures in the following years. In 1880 there were 25 entrances, and 38 appointments were given. In 1881 there were 39 entrances, and 35 public appointments were granted. A letter had been sent to him, written by Colonel Chesney, formerly the Governor of the Institution. In that letter, which was dated December 12, 1881, the writer said that Cooper's Hill did not profess to turn out practical engineers, but merely to educate its students to be engineers. That being so, was it wise to exclude from the benefits conferred upon the students of the College the students of other Engineering Schools, where proper technical knowledge was acquired? It was a serious thing to support a College which did not profess to give that which might be obtained from a system of competition—namely, a quality of practicality, possessing which engineers could go to work at once without having to pass through a period of probation. It should be observed that, under the present system, applicants for admission to the College were not subjected to competitive examination. Their admission depended solely upon priority of application, so that the monopoly and advantages of the College were conferred upon boys according to that priority. It was true that there were examinations at the end of the students' career; but the way in which the examination was conducted was very remarkable. It did not profess to be more than a pass-exa-
  1114
  mination; and the only element of competition was this—that the pass students were ranged in order of merit, so that those who were at the head of the list were given the first vacant appointments. As he had shown, however, there was really an appointment for each young man who passed. He could not see why the advantages of the Indian Public Service should not be given to other students than those educated at the College; and how could it be for the advantage of the Government in India to deprive it of the services of the best engineer students that the Empire could supply? The only examination conducted at the College, which had any of the competitive element in it, being that held at the close of the students' career, why should not the students of other recognized Engineering Schools be permitted to present themselves at that examination, and run their chance against the young men from Cooper's Hill? Why the 50 young men received at Cooper's Hill by priority of application should have the preference as regarded Indian appointments over all other comers, however well-qualified, he did not understand. It did not seem to him to be a position which could be logically defended. He, therefore, begged to move his Resolution.
  MR. CARBUTT, in seconding the Motion, said, he thought the matter was one of very great importance, and was one which would largely affect numbers of Civil Engineers, both in this country and in India. It seemed that the Duke of Argyll had made up his mind that he was not able to obtain engineers in this country fit to go out to India and do the work. He had made up his mind without consultation with the authorities in India, and had then determined that the best thing to do was to establish this College. Considerable objections were raised against the scheme at the time of its institution by the then Governor General of India (Lord Mayo), who wrote on the 28th March, 1870 (No. 43, Public Works), to his Grace the Duke of Argyll a strong letter giving his views as to the establishment of this College. In discussing the grade in which Civil Engineers trained in the proposed College should enter the Public Works Department on arrival in India, the following statement occurred:—
  "The pay proposed for this grade in the scheme lately transmitted is £420 per annum.

  1115
  This sum, we believe, is not too much to offer young men trained as Civil Engineers, and we are disposed to consider that it is owing to the insufficiency of the present salary offered to the young Civil Engineers on first entering on their duties in India—namely, £240 per annum—that the failure to fill the appointments in the Public Works Department offered for competition has been mainly due. We are much inclined to think that if this increase of salary were now offered, it would have a marked effect on the supply of candidates under the existing system. We leave it to your Grace to determine whether such an experiment might properly he made before the opening of the proposed College."
  Clearly showing that the noble Lord thought the question of obtaining qualified engineers was merely one of pounds, shillings, and pence. There could be no doubt that, in consequence of the low charge for entrance, and the excellence of the course of instruction furnished by the College, the students who passed through it gained enormous advantages over other engineers; and he contended that if the Government had been prepared at the time the College was founded to pay a proper price, they would have got any number of men to go out and do their work. With regard to the question of expense, during the past 11 years the Engineering College had cost £317,000, against which there was only to show in the shape of receipts £148,000. Yet the public works in India executed by the Cooper's Hill students compared unfavourably with similar works in this country—railways, canals, harbours, &c.—the constructors of which had no exceptional advantages, but were obtained by a process of natural selection. It was calculated that the Cooper's Hill students were turned out at a cost to the country of about £321 per head. This was an enormous sum of money for the country to be paying for each pupil who went out to India, without the slightest knowledge of civil engineering, and without any practical experience except what he might have obtained from books. The system was radically bad, and, like the example of the Ponts et Chaussées in France, showed the folly of creating a close corporation in this country with the object of foisting a mushroom growth of engineers upon the Indian Service. The least the Government could do, under the circumstances, was to assent to the proposed inquiry.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the working and expense of Cooper's Hill College, and to report if it is desirable, for the public service, to retain the present system, or whether any and, if so, what changes and modifications should be made,"—(Mr. Gibson,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURearnestly hoped the noble Marquess would favourably consider the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In support of that recommendation he spoke strongly as to its failure, seeing that the College had not been carried on on the principles on which it was first established. He had very much regretted that the Government of India should have hampered itself with such an expensive establishment, because a small part of the money laid out would have enabled the Schools of Engineering in the Kingdom to have supplied fit persons for service in India. But the important point on which he urged the noble Marquess to consider the proposal was this—that in spite of the recommendations of the Governor General the College had been instituted. The prudent counsels of Lord Mayo, who was himself a thoroughly practical man, had been set at nought, and the forecasts which he had made had turned out to be quite correct, the College having failed to turn out engineers of the quality and kind that the Government of India required. The expenses had also far exceeded the amount which was calculated at the time. So far from the original estimate of the cost of each student being adhered to, if the averages were made up properly the cost would be brought up to £300 per student. indeed, by the bad mode of stating the annual amount of the charges of the College, the average was as high as £500 per student actually passed out; and this was a net sum after deducting the receipts. These averages were to be contrasted with the estimated cost of £1,850 for 50 trained engineers, or only £37 per student. When the Duke of Argyll first proposed the College, he said there would be no unnecessary expenditure; and yet, within a few months, £58,000

  1117
  had been spent in acquiring the property; and the whole amount of capital invested in the building and land, was £119,000. A very considerable profit had been obtained by the persons from whom the property had been purchased; and that profit, he had reason to believe, had been made in consequence of information furnished to the sellers. The capital account being mixed up with the ordinary annual charge was open to objection. The interest on that capital account ought to be a part of the annual current expenditure. But, by the mode in which the statement was made out, this liability was omitted. It was also worthy of notice that the purpose of the College had been changed. Instead of being an exclusive Training School for India, it had become one for the whole Empire; and this was entirely foreign to the work which India had to perform. Then, when the College was established, its course of study had no reference to any practical training, and nothing in the way of practical training was done for several years. In 1877–8, however, the sum of £2,552 was spent for the purpose of giving the students who had passed through the College the practical training outside the College which the College failed to give them; and in the following year £4,967 was spent for this purpose, while in 1879–80 the sum of £8,028 was spent for conferring practical experience. If the sum paid in the upkeep of Cooper's Hill establishment had been spent in encouraging the various Engineering Institutions throughout the country, it would have done a great deal more good.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had no complaint to make of the spirit and tone in which that Motion had been brought forward. Nor was it at all his intention to argue that no Parliamentary Inquiry into the working of the College, and also into the system of recruitment for the Public Works Department in India, would be desirable. All he now wished to do was to offer to the House a few observations in order to show, as he thought he would be able to show, that a Parliamentary Inquiry, such as was asked for, would, at the present time, be premature, and was therefore undesirable. The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr.
  1118
  Gibson) had covered somewhat wider ground than the terms of the Motion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had only moved for a Select Committee—
  "To inquire into the working and expense of Cooper's Hill College, and to report if it is desirable, for the public service, to retain the present system, or whether any and, if so, what changes and modifications should be made."
  An inquiry of that nature might very easily be understood, and he confessed that he had understood it as being limited to an inquiry into the working of Cooper's Hill College and the present system in force there. But he gathered from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he wished to cover a much larger ground—namely, whether the recruitment of the Public Works Department in India was practically to be confined in future to the students of Cooper's Hill College; or whether the system of open competition was to be reverted to? Now, the wider scope given to the Motion by that speech increased his objection to granting the Committee at the present time; for he could not help seeing that such an inquiry at this moment, when the College had only been in operation for 11 years, and under the new and revised system not for one year, would be almost fatal to the prospects of the Institution. To revert to the principle of open competition might possibly at some future time be necessary; but to revert to it at present, when Cooper's Hill College, under the existing system, was absolutely in its infancy, would deal a fatal blow to the future of the establishment; and he must say that would be scarcely justified at the present time. He was scarcely concerned to defend the original institution of the College. The reasons which prevailed with the Duke of Argyll and the Council of India at that time were before the House. No doubt, it was alleged now that an adequate supply of engineers might be obtained for India by open competition; but certainly it was not conceived at that time that an adequate supply was forthcoming. The appointments were thrown open; but the result of the examination was that so few candidates presented themselves that it could not be really called open competition—in fact, almost all who presented themselves obtained appointments. It was

  1119
  said, indeed, that that fact was owing to the insufficiency of the pay and the prospects held out. That argument, however, was hardly borne out; because as soon as Cooper's Hill College was constituted a number of students did offer themselves, although they had to undergo a long course of training and had to pay considerably for it. [Mr. GIBSON: Better pay.] He was not altogether acquainted with the figures; but he understood that originally the inducements offered to students were very much the same as those previously offered by open competition. It was, however, suggested that they might revert to open competition in conjunction with Cooper's Hill College. Well, during the first years of that College, it was open to candidates to obtain their education where they pleased, and to compete with the students of the College at the final examination. But so few availed themselves of that privilege that it practically became a dead-letter, and it was not thought necessary to retain it on the re-organization of the College. The calculation which had been laid before the House by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was an exceedingly rough one; but he did not deny that the average expenses of Cooper's Hill had exceeded the receipts by something like £4,000 annually. It was also not unfair to say that the average cost of the education of each student was about £200, if interest on capital outlay were excluded, and £300 if it were included. That, no doubt, was a considerable charge, and he did not say it was one which ought to be permanently incurred by the Government of India; but, at the same time, the magnitude of the interests involved in the efficient management of public works in India was so great that any expense of this kind ought to sink into insignificance. The question was one of efficiency in the proper recruitment of the Public Works Department of India. Looked at in this point of view, Cooper's Hill had not been unsatisfactory. The Government of India had reported several times that they were fully satisfied with the recruits sent them; and in one of their despatches they stated that the Reports they received were universally favourable, and in some cases eminently so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to a letter of Colonel Chesney,
  1120
  which took notice of the want of practical training of engineers sent out. He had not seen the letter, and had not been able to follow the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he could scarcely conceive that he intended to argue that the engineers sent out from Cooper's Hill College had less practical knowledge and training, and were less qualified to take up their work at once, than candidates who were sent out from any other Engineering School in the country. No doubt, from whatever school they came, they required some practical training; but he did not suppose it would be contended that a Scotch University or Trinity College sent out more practically qualified engineers than Cooper's Hill had done. He (the Marquess of Hartington) had stated that he did not feel himself called upon to defend the policy of the original institution of this College. It was done after the fullest consideration; and, the money having been spent and laid out, it was no use discussing whether it was a wise policy at the time or not. Nor did it devolve primarily upon him to defend the new organization. What he had done had been simply to carry into completion the arrangements made by his Predecessor. The fact was, that during 1876, 1877, and 1878, the excessive cost to India of this establishment had directed attention to it, and various proposals were under the consideration of the Government for the reduction of the charges. In 1879 the check which was then given by the reduction of the Public Works expenditure, and, as a consequence, the diminution of the employment for Civil Engineers, made the question still more urgent. It was very carefully considered by Lord Cranbrook and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope). At that time the question of closing the College was mooted; and he had no hesitation in saying that the Government of India were not indisposed to recommend that course. Lord Cranbrook, however, doubted the expediency of the course favoured by the Government of India. Taking into consideration the very excellent, though somewhat costly, result of Cooper's Hill, he did not wonder that Lord Cranbrook had hesitated to destroy an Institution which had done so much good, and promised to do so much more. No doubt, as had been said, there were

  1121
  other Institutions in which engineering education was given. Engineering schools existed in the Schools and Colleges referred to; and he believed that in some cases degrees and diplomas in engineering science were conferred; but he did not believe that there existed in any part of the Kingdom an establishment devoted to education in civil engineering in which the appliances and the arrangements carried out so complete a system of engineering education as at Cooper's Hill.
  MR. GIBSONobserved, that Trinity College possessed every appliance for the purpose of affording a complete education in engineering.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONwas informed that there was no Institution where the appliances were so complete as at Cooper's Hill. Then, it must be remembered that the same article was not required in India as in this country. Any man proceeding from an engineering school in the United Kingdom or Ireland was kept for a time under the care of a competent engineer, possessing full practical knowledge, under whose direction he rapidly became competent. But in India the men were widely scattered, they had almost immediately to take up independent duties, and they were not, and could not be, retained under the care of professional experts, as would be the case in England. It did not follow, therefore, that because the engineering schools of this country were exactly adapted for the production of the article required for engineering at home, the same schools would turn out what was required for India. Under those circumstances, Lord Cranbrook hesitated to adopt the proposal to close the schools and to abandon altogether what had been done. He appointed a Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanhope) was Chairman, which conferred with certain leading members of the engineering profession. As a result, they made certain proposals which were adopted by Lord Cranbrook, and the constitution of the College was entirely changed. It had been originally computed that at least 50 engineers would be annually required to be sent out to India; but when the reduction in the Public Works expenditure of India was decided upon, it was found that probably 10, or 15 at the utmost, would be annually needed for many years to come. It was
  1122
  therefore evident that Cooper's Hill could not be kept up exclusively for the wants of India, and it was decided to alter the constitution of the College, and to throw it open to the public, and to abolish the entrance examination. The appointments in the Public Works Department, as many as were vacant, it was decided should be offered, from time to time, as prizes to the most successful students in the establishment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had contended that every student would obtain an appointment at the conclusion of his course, whether he submitted himself to examination or not. That was not so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman took the years in which it was known that the number of appointments to be given would very much diminish, and on account of that knowledge the entrances fell off. It was hoped that this Institution might be made useful and available, not only to meet the wants of India, but also of the Colonies and Dependencies of this country, and, to a certain extent, for home requirements. With the object of adapting the education fully to the wants of the public, a Board of Visitors had been appointed, who were intrusted with the revision of the studies pursued at the College, and it was hoped that the course would thus adapt itself to the wants of the public and the profession. The Board of Visitors now consists half of gentlemen who were qualified by Indian experience, and half of eminent members of the engineering profession. Among the latter, he might mention Mr. Barlow, the President of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Mr. Fowler, the late President, and Mr. Siemens, whose reputations were well known. These were active and attentive Members of the Board, and they had from time to time recommended certain changes in the studies. This scheme was practically matured when he succeeded to the management of the India Office; and he had had nothing to do with it but to give his formal sanction to the appointment of gentlemen who had already been nominated for the Board of Visitors. The scheme only came into operation last September, and the support it had hitherto received from the public was by no means discouraging. No one desired that any considerable burden should be permanently imposed upon the Government of India for the pur-

  1123
  pose of maintaining this College. No doubt they would not be justified in imposing a heavy burden upon the Revenues of India, and they must endeavour to devise some other system; but there was no reason to think that under the new management any such terms would be imposed. At all events, considering what had been done, the expenditure that had been incurred, and the undoubted efficiency of the instruction which was now given at Cooper's Hill, it would be a matter of great regret that by a premature inquiry public confidence in this College should be destroyed, and the chance of its becoming a success should be put an end to. As he had said at the commencement, he did not say that this was not a subject which might hereafter be very usefully inquired into by a Committee; but it appeared to him that at the present moment, when a new scheme which was very carefully elaborated had only just come into operation, that course would not be an advantageous or a desirable one to adopt. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Carbutt) made some reference to the grievances of the civil engineers employed in the Public Works Department. The hon. Member referred to the Royal Engineers. Well, the position of the civil engineers had lately been under the consideration of the Government of India, and they made certain proposals which were still under the consideration of the Council of India. He had every disposition to give a fair consideration to that most important branch of the Civil Service, and he trusted that reasonable satisfaction would be given those men. It was true that a great many of the highest appointments were still held by the Royal Engineers; but they had had a long start in the profession, even the Stanley engineers being comparatively their juniors; and it was natural that the senior service should still hold a considerable proportion of the higher appointments; but there was no reason to believe that as time went on this would continue to be the case. He ventured to hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be satisfied with having called attention to this very important question, and would not press his Motion to a division. It would be competent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when some further experience had been gained in the working of this College
  1124
  under the new management, to bring forward the subject again. He could not think that an inquiry at the present moment would be conducted under advantageous circumstances.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he had no wish to pass the slightest slur upon the management of the College. He had the pleasure of knowing several who had been connected with it, and those who had been educated in it, and he knew the great work the College had done. But, after all, the question to be considered was, What was the best plan for recruiting the Public Works Department in India? He had the pleasure of being connected with India some years ago, when this question cropped up in a forcible way. After mature consideration it was deemed that the best plan for promoting the Service of India was by having a practical College in England, where gentlemen could be trained for the services they had to render abroad. The question was forced on the Government of India by the great and overwhelming public opinion—an opinion in which he fully shared—that it was a matter of paramount importance for the prosperity of India that large sums of money should be spent annually on public works; and this, of course, necessitated a considerable increase in the staff of officers at that time employed. They had had officers as able and efficient coming from the Military Department as, he believed, they would ever get from Cooper's Hill College. But the number of engineers they could get in India was comparatively small considering the amount of work which had to be performed. So long, however, as they had Cooper's Hill to obtain recruits from, and also could obtain military engineers from Woolwich, there would always be some little friction and dissatisfaction—therefore, his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) proposed to have a Committee to inquire into the system of education at Cooper's Hill; and, in fact, to have a thorough inquiry into the mode of recruiting the Public Works Department in India, and he thought it would be well to agree to the Motion. He supposed there never was a more efficient or abler engineer than the present Lord Napier of Magdala; but he was rather an exception. It would be very difficult to recruit officers of the same calibre as Lord Napier. He did not care what the ex-

  1125
  pense of an establishment in this country for training young men might be, so long as they could send out efficient men to India. The question was, What was the best way of getting men into the Public Works Department? It appeared to him that it would be better if they had some more general system of getting men for that Department; that there should be examinations of candidates in Scotland and in Ireland; and that those who successfully passed examinations should be placed under efficient tuition in this country. The amount of money spent in India for public works was never the same from one year to another. The amount depended upon the sum that could be spared from the Revenues of India, and it was this fluctuating demand which had been the great difficulty of Cooper's Hill College. The fluctuations in the number of men trained in it, according to the state of the Indian finances, he believed, caused greater expense than any plan that could be adopted for recruiting men for any Department where the constant and regular supply was known. The noble Marquess had referred to an inquiry which had taken place; but it was simply Departmental, and it could not be so efficient as one by a Select Committee of that House, which would show whether military engineers would be the best to send out to India—in short, whether the teaching and training at Woolwich or at Cooper's Hill were the better; and another question whether Woolwich could supply the quantity of recruits necessary for the Service. He considered that it would be more satisfactory to the public, not only in this country, but in India, if the Committee that was asked for were appointed, though he admitted, at the same time, there was force in the observation to let the present system have a further trial.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the practical effect of appointing a Committee of Inquiry would be to paralyze the working of Cooper's Hill College, and, ere long, lead to its utter destruction. No doubt Cooper's Hill College must stand or fall upon its own merits. He quite admitted that if the question were a new one, and they were asked to establish such an Institution, there might be some ground for hesitation; but now that it was established, it was but just that it should have a fair trial. At the time of its in-
  1126
  stitution it could not be denied that an Institution of that character was necessary. It was established at what he might call a period of inflation, when an exceptional number of engineers was suddenly required; and it was a time when we were not fully able to arrive at a definite conclusion as to the number of engineers that would be required in the future, or as to the extent to which we should be able to employ Natives. Therefore it was that the establishment of the College was forced upon the Duke of Argyll. It could not be doubted that the College had done admirably good work to the Profession and the country. Students had been sent from it who were a credit to their country and to their profession. There was one matter not much alluded to, which had always struck him as supremely important. He would refer to some remarks made by Colonel Chesney, who afterwards became the head of the College. Colonel Chesney said that the spirit of esprit de corps which such an Institution was calculated to engender was not the least of its merits, because it was a matter of feeling rather than administration. Colonel Chesney went on to say that he was only expressing the general feeling of the Profession when he said that the Institution had served to bring together, in the period of enthusiastic youth, the future members of the Service, who looked forward to passing their lives in a common calling in India. That was the spirit in which the College had been founded. How had it worked? He believed a corporate sense of honour—which was, perhaps, a better expression than esprit de corps—had been created, which led men to do their best to reflect credit on the Institution. The expenditure on the College, if great, could hardly be considered in recent years, at any rate, to be out of proportion to the service rendered, as it was of the highest importance that the best class of engineers should be secured. It was found, however, when the Public Works Staff in India was largely reduced in 1879, that only a small proportion of the students admitted to the College could possibly receive appointments to the Public Works Service in India; and, in consequence, a new system was organized, which had only been in operation for six or seven months. It was perfectly clear to his mind that

  1127
  an inquiry at this early stage could do no good; its only effect would he be to weaken and hinder the useful work which was being done. His right hon. and learned Friend proposed to go back to the open system. But it was perfectly clear that by competition alone the best men could not be obtained. The result of the existing system had turned out good practical engineers, and men who were bound in honour to do their duty. He trusted that the House would allow that system to be thoroughly tested, and would not break up an Institution which had done such valuable service.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he regretted that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India had not seen fit to assent to the appointment of such a Committee as had been proposed by his right hon. and learned Friend and Colleague. He would venture to appeal once more to the noble Lord, in the interest not only of his own constituents, but also of the public generally, to allow a Committee to sit for the purpose of inquiry, by no means necessarily in a hostile spirit, into the working of Cooper's Hill College, in order to get to the bottom of the question, and to set at rest the discontent which prevailed in the public mind as to the management of that Institution. The argument of the noble Lord was that if there was an inquiry public confidence would be shaken. But he did not think that a fair inquiry, over which it was not improbable the noble Lord himself would preside, would tend to blight and wither the prospects of the College. What harm could happen? The Professors would still lecture, and the students attend their lectures. The noble Lord was entirely mistaken in stating that there was no practical school of engineering besides the College. In the University of Dublin there was a perfectly practical school of engineering, in which the curriculum was much the same as that at Cooper's Hill, except that the examination at the University was of a more practical and searching character. The Dublin engineering students had done much valuable work in the country. This and other schools, in fact, turned out all the engineers of the country, Cooper's Hill having merely a character more specialized. Then he did not understand from the speech of his right hon. and learned Friend that
  1128
  he wished to abolish Cooper's Hill, root and branch. That might possibly be the result; but it might be far otherwise. The great danger was in creating a monopoly, which always tended to encourage laziness, whereas, with free and open competition, you always got your money's worth. The present system at Cooper's Hill was a haphazard one, in which the rule prevailed of first come first served, and there was no adequate security of getting the best men. Another extraordinary thing connected with the College was this. The noble Lord said it now admitted other persons than those who were designed for the Indian Civil Service. On what ground, he should like to know, were they admitted? In his opinion, this was only an excuse for keeping up this expensive monopoly. There was another most remarkable thing with respect to which he should like some explanation. According to the 31st paragraph of the scheme, the College authorities might, on the application of students who passed out of the College, but who did not enter the Indian Civil Service, place them as pupils with eminent engineers on payment of a nominal premium. This was an additional attraction to induce men to come into the College; and, although they did not intend to go out to India at all, the College was to interfere in order to give them these extraordinary advantages. The College was well endowed, and no doubt it was a very excellent Institution; but this was no reason why it should not be inquired into. All the Civil Services were now thrown open, and a general system of open competition prevailed. By competition alone could the public be assured of obtaining the best men for the public service. He did not wish to say one word against the excellence of the College or of the students; but he thought his right hon. and learned Friend and Colleague had made out a case for an inquiry into the working of this Institution.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that when the College was established the condition of the Public Works Service in India was not satisfactory, and it was felt that something should be done to supply young men for the engineering service in India. It was the case also then that there were no engineering schools in this country which sufficiently combined this branch with scientific educa-

  1129
  tion. He had listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson); and, while one or two of his statements struck him as extravagant, in many respects his arguments were very cogent. He knew that in the University of Edinburgh the engineering school had been very much improved; and he thought that with respect to engineering schools Scotland and Ireland had an advantage over England. The English Universities, he thought, were too much hampered by endowments, which bound them to certain subjects of education, and it was a reproach to them that they were not provided with engineering schools. It might be fairly said that Cooper's Hill College was subsidized, and that it competed with the other engineering educational Institution s in the United Kingdom. He was not surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, representing the constituency he did, should have brought this question forward; but they must give weight to the considerations put forward by the noble Marquess. Cooper's Hill College was established to meet a necessity, and it was, to a certain extent, successful. He should be sorry to see that College done away with, or undermined, without full consideration and adequate inquiry. The noble Lord told them that a new arrangement had been recently made, and he was apprehensive that any further inquiry might endanger the success of the present experiment. If he (Sir George Campbell) had that all-prevailing faith in the efficiency of the House of Commons to set everything right in every department of the British Empire, he might not be indisposed to support the proposal for a Select Committee; but he confessed the longer one sat in the House, the more one was convinced that it was overwhelmed with Business, and having regard to the breadth and largeness of the questions which might be opened up by an inquiry of this kind, it was a question whether it would be desirable to bring it forward until the Procedure of the House was reformed. On that ground, while confessing that he thought it extremely desirable that, if not now, at all events before very long, some sufficient inquiry should be made into the system by which the Public Works Service in India was supplied, he was not, for one, prepared
  1130
  to oppose the view that the noble Lord took that the present proposal was somewhat premature, and that they had better wait a little before Parliament should be asked to make the inquiry. With regard to the distribution of patronage in India, and to the appointment of military engineers, he most emphatically denied that there was any prejudice in favour of military engineers, or that civil engineers were likely to be unfairly treated. It was desirable in the interest of the Public Service that they should have in India men who were prepared to devote their lives to the country, who would become acquainted with the habits and language of the Natives, men not only good engineers, but men who must be able to manage vast armies of Natives, sympathize with them, and, as he said, to spend the better part of their lives among them. He was inclined to believe that the military engineers should confine themselves to military work, and that in future the Civil Department of the Public Works in India should be recruited by young civil engineers. They had in Scotland and Ireland established sufficient schools of engineering; and he felt that they should not be excluded from the appointment of students to these engineering posts.
  MR. PUGHsaid, this was not a College for India only, but for home requirements. It was only Indian in this respect, that India had to pay the whole cost of it. He certainly thought the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) had by his speech conclusively shown a necessity for the proposed inquiry.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 27: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 68.)
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

POLICE PROTECTION TO PUBLIC SERVANTS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON, in rising to call attention to the increase to the rates arising, during a period of deep depression, from the necessity of adding to the local police forces, in order to protect public servants from personal violence, with the view of moving—
"That the obligation to provide special police protection to public servants is a subject of Imperial rather than local obligation, and should no longer be a charge upon the rates,"

1131
said, that the Home Secretary seemed to think it was offensive in him the other day to draw the attention of the House to a matter which seemed to him to be of public importance. He trusted he would now retract that insinuation. This Resolution was one which was universally, or almost universally, accepted elsewhere as an axiom of government, and was both reasonable and politic. One Act of Parliament which established local police provided that special and extraordinary police services should be paid for by those who required them. The Chief Constables might, when applied to, and with the permission of the local authorities, provide constables for special duty. Under the Act 3 & 4 Vict. c. 80, s. 19, provision was made to that effect; and it had been largely taken advantage of by the managers of places of public amusement, as well as by contractors for large public works, and by others. According to the Metropolitan Police Returns, as many as 1,200 men were employed on such special services; and in the Civil Service Estimates it appeared that Royal and public personages and places were provided with police protection, the expense of which was charged on the Estimates, and was not thrown on the rates. Under this head the charge in respect of Marlborough House, for instance, was £595, and for the House of Commons £2,500. The Home Secretary had, indeed, argued that Cabinet Ministers were just the same as any ordinary individuals. He put that down rather to his own excessive modesty than to any want of appreciation of fact or of law. It would follow from this statement that the Ministers who, in the exercise of their public duties, brought themselves into unpopularity, ought to provide the necessary police protection for themselves out of their own pockets. What more monstrous proposition could be laid down? The necessity for that protection came from the discharge of their public duties, and not of private duties; and, therefore, the obligation to protect them fell necessarily, it seemed to him, upon the public. He took the case of the Flintshire Local Authority as an example of what was happening or might happen anywhere. In the autumn of last year, the Chief Constable of the county applied to the Local Authority for special additional police to protect the Prime Minister.
1132
The Chairman of the Local Authority appealed to the Court over which he presided, stating that the Home Secretary required the Chief Constable to furnish men for the protection of the Prime Minister. The Local Authority expressed their opinion that the safety of the Prime Minister was a national affair, and that, for that reason, the cost of his protection should fall on the National Exchequer; but instantly provided the special police contingent that was asked for. In the result a county singularly free from crime was charged with the expense caused by the crime of another part of the Kingdom. Now, the Local Authority ought not to have been called upon to make any such provision. Not long ago the local taxation reformers thought they had converted the Prime Minister to their views, when he surrendered at discretion before the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt). The right hon. Gentleman must excuse them if they were now rather doubtful, and called to mind his words, that any relief to the rural ratepayers would be nothing less than quartering the landlords on the Exchequer. The Prime Minister was quartering himself upon the ratepayers. There was, however, a far graver matter to consider—the inadequacy of the Local Authority to discharge the duty cast upon it. When the Prime Minister thought it necessary to make a visit to a political magnate in a neighbouring county, he was conducted by the Flintshire police to Chester, by the Cheshire police to Lancashire, and by the Lancashire police to Knowsley; he travelled like a State prisoner rather than a State official. Was it right, was it fitting, that the Prime Minister should be treated thus? He would not say one word against the rural police, who, however, were occasionally more distinguished for their zeal than for their discretion, as an anecdote which he would relate to the House would show. When the Prime Minister was at Hawarden the other day a poor stranger appeared on the scene, desirous of obtaining one of those letters of recommendation to a constituency which the right hon. Gentleman was so liberal in giving. He ventured to touch the hem of the Premier's garment, whereupon he was immediately seized and thrown into prison, until it was found he had committed no offence.

1133
There could be no doubt that the ratepayers of Flintshire would willingly pay £50,000 a-year, if necessary, to secure the safety of the Prime Minister; but even if they paid £1,000,000 a-year that would not avail, for the circuit of their authority was limited, while the Prime Minister was ubiquitous. The Prime Minister had told them lately that they did not realize the gravity of the issues which lay before them. They must, indeed, be grave if for the first time the unprecedented degradation had come upon the country, that in Constitutional England the Constitutional Ministers of the Crown were not safe. He regretted very much that this should be the case for the first time under the Premiership of the present Prime Minister. Complaints had been made that police protection had been taken away from the lonely caretaker in Ireland. But that was no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not be accompanied and guarded by a sufficient force of police. He hoped the House would accept this Resolution. He appealed to all sides of that House to show that they desired to acquiesce in the principle of his Motion; he would ask hon. Members who represented the Irish constituencies to show, by supporting his Motion, that they did not countenance or sympathize with the attempts against the persons of Ministers of the Crown, but were willing to vote Irish money to frustrate those plots. To the great Liberal Party he appealed to rush to the rescue of the right hon. Gentleman, who was termed by them, at all events in the country, the living incarnation of all the principles of Liberalism. As he could not move his Resolution under the Rules of the House, he would content himself by calling the attention of the Home Secretary to the matter.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, it is difficult, I am afraid, to treat this matter with all the seriousness which would seem to be demanded by the energetic rhetorical appeal of the hon. Gentleman for a combination of parties who happen to be absent—his appeal to the Irish Land Leaguers to support him, to the great party of local taxation which is absent, and to the Liberal Party, which is, at the present moment, I believe, at dinner. But whether this Motion was intended to be a local taxation Motion, or whether it was intended
1134
to be a great political and personal attack on the Prime Minister, I am left to doubt. The first part of it was a prosaic form of the local taxation creed—if the hon. Gentleman will allow one, without offence, to say so—run rather mad. The latter part of it was a sort of semi-political, semi-personal attack upon the Prime Minister. I will leave that part of the matter, because it has nothing to do with this question. The only point on which I will detain such of the House as are present is the local taxation question. The hon. Member has regard to the case of Flintshire, and I ask myself—"How is it that this Motion has come before the House?" There is a Member for Flintshire. There are Members for the Flint Boroughs, and for Cheshire, for Liverpool, and for Lancashire, representing the people who protected the Prime Minister when he went to Knowsley. But what has Shropshire suffered? I do not know if Shropshire is fertile of Ministers, and when they had their rates overburdened by what they have had to pay. The only thing I could think of as the origin of this Motion was that one of the hon. Members for Shrewsbury (Mr. Cotes), who was a junior Lord of the Treasury, had been protected at an enormous cost. Why did the hon. Member for Shropshire come forward with this Motion? Who have taken the matter up in Flintshire? The magistrates of Flintshire. But the great basis of all local taxation reform rests in the fundamental proposition that the magistrates did not represent the ratepayers. There is no body of men who are less representative of the sentiments of the ratepayers, or less fit to convey their views, than the magistrates; and if my hon. Friend, as a local taxation reformer, will bear that proposition in mind, he will master the grammar of the subject. As far as I know, the ratepayers have disavowed this Motion, and have condemned the view of the majority of the magistrates. It is a remarkable fact that while this matter is brought before the House by a Gentleman who has no connection with Flintshire, the motion at the Quarter Sessions was brought forward by a gentleman who does not reside in Flintshire, and who, for 12 or 13 years previously, had not been at any meeting of Sessions there. There is a gentleman whose opinion, at any rate, is rather taking,

1135
and that is the Chairman of Quarter Sessions. Having considered my letter, he was good enough to say that, though they were justified in asking the Home Secretary to repay some portion of the extra expenditure, he, on the other hand, if he had been the Home Secretary, would have sent the same answer as the Home Secretary had sent—that they were bound to protect their own ratepayers. Now, the hon. Member has stated that I considered the character of this Resolution was somewhat offensive. That is not my expression, but the word he adopted; but it was not my view of the subject. That view of the subject was entertained by a gentleman very well known in Flintshire to hold Conservative opinions; and he said—
"Is it wise, courteous, altogether right, when we have the privilege of having resident in the county so distinguished a man to begrudge that small contribution towards the protection of his life and property? It is a matter in which politics should be completely put a side. It would he better to bear this little grievance than to lay ourselves open to the charge of unwillingness to protect the Prime Minister, whatever his politics might be."
These, I believe, are the views of the ratepayers of Flintshire, and the views of the people of this country. What is the rule? The hon. Member seems to be imperfectly informed of the practice in this country on this subject. He seems to have repeated a statement which was made by Colonel Rowley, that in the Metropolis there were specially employed for the protection of Her Majesty's Ministers 13,000 or 14,000 policemen—and that is the sagacious man upon whose advice and motion the magistrates of Flintshire adopted this resolution. Now, Sir, there is not one particle of foundation for that statement. There are not 13,000 police employed in the defence of Her Majesty's Ministers; and, in the next place, those who are so employed are paid precisely in the same way as the magistrates of Flintshire are called upon to pay. There is no special payment. I have before me a memorandum from Colonel Henderson, which states that it has always been held to be the duty of the Metropolitan Police to make proper provision for any special arrangements necessary from time to time for the protection of distinguished personages visiting the Metropolis, of Her Majesty's Ministers, and of such other persons as are held
1136
entitled to special consideration, and no payment has ever been made by the Treasury on that account. That is a matter which the hon. Member might have ascertained of Colonel Rowley, if he had taken the trouble to ask. Oh, yes; but then it is necessary to read those things intelligently to understand them. The hon. Member has referred to the Houses of Parliament. There is a payment made for the police employed inside the Houses of Parliament, but not for those employed outside. The whole cost of protection for Her Majesty and the Royal Family is borne by the ratepayers of London, subsidized to the extent of one-half from the Imperial Funds; and does the hon. Member maintain that the Queen is to be put on the same footing as public servants? He has not said so. The fact is that the principle is that very sensibly stated by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions of Flintshire, that it is the duty of every local authority to protect persons who are within their jurisdiction. That applies to the highest and to the lowest. It applies to Her Majesty's Ministers; it applies to the hon. Member; it applies to the Sovereign; it applies to the Royal Family. Now, Sir, I should like to know what the hon. Member's definition is with respect to public servants? He originally put it in the form of "Cabinet Ministers." I suppose the magistrates are public servants, and they must not go upon the rates; but the expense of protecting them must be borne by the Consolidated Fund. Officers in the Army are also public servants, and it must be understood that they are not on the rates. And when the Government is turned out, are they then to be protected or are they not? They cease to be public servants; and are they then to go upon the rates? Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman is a little at fault in his history. He says that this is the first time that Ministers of State have ever required protection. Well, Sir, I will recommend the hon. Member to read in histories of the time of George III., during the Administration in the days of the Wilkes riots, or in the days of Lord George Gordon riots, and he will find that there have been Ministers in former times who have required police protection. Sir, there are people who require protection sometimes more than Ministers—the Leaders of the

1137
Opposition. They are often quite as unpopular and require protection quite as much. I do not know whether the hon. Member has the disadvantage of being old enough, as I have, to recollect that time when the iron shutters of Apsley House had to be closed, and when it was necessary to protect the great Duke of Wellington against a popular siege in London on the anniversary of Waterloo; and I remember some verses of Lord Stanhope, in which it was said the English people were more shamed on the London streets than the French were on the Belgian plains. I want to know whether the hon. Member extends his principle to Her Majesty's Opposition? In reply to an inquiry which I made to the Commissioner of Police, whom I happened to meet to-day, he said he had been at quite as much pains to protect the Members of the Opposition as Members who were in Office. Members of the Opposition, as in the case of the Duke of Wellington at the time of the Reform agitation, may be just as much in need of protection as Ministers of the Crown. It is therefore quite impossible to admit of a limitation of this kind, apart from the universal principle acted upon everywhere, that each locality is responsible for the peace of the locality. When, for instance, the Queen or the Prince of Wales went down into the country, as the Prince of Wales recently went down to Liverpool, did the people of Liverpool or of other places visited grudge the cost of the extra police who were required to be engaged on account of the Royal visit? The police are responsible for the district, and you cannot take particular individuals and ticket them—"This is a servant of the Crown, and therefore it shall not be at the risk of the locality. You shall not protect him. You shall protect another man." The hon. Gentleman has a Colleague whose father was lately a public servant, holding the Office of Master of the Horse. Well, is Lord Bradford to be protected at the expense of the rates when he is not Master of the Horse, and to be protected by the Consolidated Fund when he is? Is that a thing that would be tolerated, or is it possible to work it? How are the police to determine whether a man is a public servant or not—whether he is to be protected at the cost of this fund or the other? I do
1138
not wish to speak at all disrespectfully of the great question of local taxation; but this is an instance in which it is not worth while departing from a very serious principle to gain, I think, no particular advantage. I therefore cannot concur in the view of the matter taken by the hon. Gentleman.
MR. ROBERTSsaid, he rose for the purpose of denying that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) represented, in the course he had taken, the feelings of the ratepayers of Flintshire. Heavily burdened as they were, and notwithstanding that they were suffering from the depression of the mining and agricultural interest, they cheerfully bore the charge for the protection of the Premier, and the feeling prevalent among them was one of shame at the conduct of their magistrates. The motion at their meeting was moved by a comparative stranger, who had not attended Quarter Sessions before for the last 12 years.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF PETER DUNNE—MR. JUSTICE FITZGERALD.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had given Notice that he would draw attention to the conduct of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, at Mary borough, in detaining in custody Peter Dunne after he has been acquitted of the charge brought against him; and to move—
"That the action of Judge Fitzgerald in detaining in custody Peter Dunne, after his acquittal on the charge preferred against him, and on account only of a demonstration in court over which the prisoner had no control, was an abuse of authority."
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, continuing, said, that the subject-matter of his Motion he submitted to the Attorney General for Ireland three weeks ago, and furnished him with a verbatim report of the proceedings which took place from a local newspaper. Peter Dunne was tried before Mr. Justice Fitzgerald for manslaughter on the 3rd of March, and acquitted, the jury taking a very short time to arrive at their verdict. When the verdict was delivered no comment was made by the Judge; but it was

1139
received with applause. Justice Fitzgerald then said—
"In consequence of that display I order the prisoner to be kept in custody until to-night, and if there is any more of such conduct I will keep all the prisoners in custody until the close of the Assizes."
The answer which the Attorney General for Ireland gave to his letter was that he had seen different reports of the case in The Irish Times and The Daily Express and was, therefore, not prepared to admit the accuracy of the report. But he contended that it was very likely, at any rate, that it was correct; and he would leave it to the House to judge of the fitness or can dour of an answer of that sort. The Attorney General for Ireland went on to say that he entirely disclaimed any duty of replying to the question as to the conduct of the Judge; but he might say that, from what he had reason to believe took place, the learned Judge acted quite legally. In other words, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although knowing nothing whatever of the circumstances of the case, and not having taken the trouble to make inquiries, was quite prepared to say that Judge Fitzgerald was right. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would contest the legal opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He denied that the Judge had any right to detain any man against whom no charge was pending, simply because some other persons, over whom he had no control, chose to commit a contempt of Court. Sir William Blackstone, whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman would, perhaps, admit to be an authority, stated that when a prisoner had been acquitted by the verdict of the jury "he should be immediately set at large." The 8 & 9 Vict., c. 114, provided that every person charged with any crime before any Court holding criminal jurisdiction within Great Britain or Ireland who on his or her trial had been acquitted "shall be immediately set at large in open Court." Archbold, in his Criminal Pleadings, stated—
"If the defendant be acquitted on the merits, he is for ever free and discharged from that accusation, and is entitled to be immediately set at liberty unless there be some other legal ground for his detention."
It was not pretended there was any other legal ground for the detention of Peter Dunne. He believed the invari-
1140
able practice was for a Judge, on a verdict of acquittal being handed in, to ask if there was any other charge against the prisoner, and if not to order his immediate discharge; but, whether the Judge so asked or not, the man, if no other charge was pending against him, was entitled to an immediate discharge. Other writers on Criminal Law were to the same effect as those he had already quoted. Whether the Grand Jury had or had not found a true bill did not affect the question. He maintained that it was a violation of the principles of the Constitution to deprive a man of his liberty because of an offence which he had not committed and for which he was not responsible. The persons who committed the offence were punishable by the Judge, who, if he had chosen, might have cleared the Court. He did not accuse Mr. Justice Fitzgerald of malice; but the learned Judge certainly acted in a very splenetic manner with regard to Peter Dunne. He was aware that it was laid down by Lord Coke and other high authorities that a Judge was in no case liable to an action for an abuse of his authority, or for exceeding his jurisdiction. Therefore it was that he brought the matter before the only tribunal which could express an opinion on it. The the terms of his Motion were very moderate.
MR. SPEAKER: I suppose the hon. Member is aware that his Amendment cannot be put to the House.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was aware of that fact; but he was anxious to bring the matter, not only before the House, but also before the country, as a protest against an improper and reckless use of power.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said that the hon. Member, in introducing his Motion, with a charming frankness had been pleased to put to the House whether he had been candid in answering a Question which had been put to him. The hon. Member had impeached the character of a Judge who, for learning and integrity, was in the first rank of Judges on the Irish Bench, and was universally respected by the Profession and the country. If the hon. Member was acquainted with the Legal Departments of Ireland, he would not have been so ready to bring forward this matter. The hon. Member had assumed

1141
that his statements were matters of fact. He disputed that assertion. There was no fact before the House; but only the statement of what he might, without offence, describe as an obscure local print. The two Dublin papers which had given accounts of the proceedings did not corroborate the story of the hon. Member. He was, therefore, not prepared to admit the facts. It was not shown that a reporter of the local paper was present, or, if there were one, that he was a competent reporter or a shorthand writer. The hon. Member had displayed a vast amount of burrowing ingenuity. But he had referred to no Irish Statute, and to no book of Irish practice. He had quoted English books of practice, and a series of Statutes which applied exclusively to England, beginning with the 14 Geo. III., which was passed before the Act of Union, and all to impeach the character of a learned and impartial Judge, of whom he had spoken in such terms of discourtesy as could hardly have been expected from anyone. The learned Judge had committed no offence. The mere fact of a series of Statutes being passed was evidence that they were intended to alter an already existing practice. In Ireland the law was that the Assize Commission was one unbroken period of time from the opening of the Assize to the proclamation of delivery. During the whole of that period prisoners remained amenable to the order of the Judge. The mere fact of the verdict being given for acquittal did not, either in England or Ireland, entitle the prisoner to an immediate discharge. The record had to be entered—which had not been done in this case—and until it was entered the prisoner could not be discharged. What took place was, that the verdict was received with great applause, and the learned Judge, in order to prevent a re-occurrence of that, said he would not discharge the prisoner until the rising of the Court, so that, after all, it was a tempest in a teapot.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked, that the Judge threatened to keep the man in prison until next day, and he did so.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), continuing, said, the Judge was strictly entitled to do as he was reported to have done when such an indecency
1142
—for it was an indecency—had been committed, representing, as it did, the prevailing feeling in the district against all law and order. The learned Judge, fearing a breach of the peace, was perfectly within his right in acting as he had done; and he himself, in the same circumstances, would not have hesitated to take the same course. In conclusion, he felt it his duty to say that a more learned, a more distinguished, a more upright, or a more fearless Judge than Mr. Justice Fitzgerald did not sit on the Irish Bench.
MR. BIGGARsaid, the Attorney General for Ireland had given a high character to Judge Fitzgerald. Others were entitled to hold a different opinion as to the merits of the learned Judge. Judge Fitzgerald was a very able man; but his reputation for impartiality did not stand so high as the Attorney General for Ireland would have the House to believe. The general opinion in Ireland was that Mr. Justice Fitzgerald was an exceedingly warm partizan of the present Government. He was a Privy Councillor, and in that capacity he directed prosecutions; he gave recommendations with regard to the general criminal policy of the Government, and then he tried the very cases based upon his own recommendations. Therefore, in point of fact, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald was prosecutor and Judge.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Mr. Justice Fitzgerald gives no advice whatever in reference to criminal prosecutions. I, and I alone, am responsible for them.
MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not state that Mr. Justice Fitzgerald gave directions in particular cases, but he did say that he gave recommendations to the Government with regard to the general policy of repression in Ireland.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): No, no; the hon. Gentleman is quite in error. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald gives no advice to the Government.
MR. BIGGAR: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman allege that a Privy Councillor was a perfectly ornamental personage? Did he give no advice at all, nor offer an opinion on any subject whatever?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The

1143
House will, perhaps, permit me to say that a Judicial Member of the Privy Council is most careful, and the Government are also most careful, that he shall have nothing whatever to say to any matter which comes before him as Judge.
MR. BIGGARsaid, that did not alter the case, for although individual cases might not come quite before the same person, that person might have his mind influenced in regard to a case which he might have to try. It was obvious that Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, being a Privy Councillor, and being consulted by the Government, gave recommendation from time to time as to their general policy. He could tell a story about Judge Fitzgerald, which he had from a political prisoner who was tried before him in 1867—namely, Mr. John Cleary—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now about to discuss the conduct of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald. The House is always very guarded in its language in reviewing the conduct of the Judges of the land; and the hon. Member is now, as I understand him, about to give to the House some hearsay story with regard to that Judge. I am bound to point out to the hon. Member that I think, considering that the House is not in a position to express its opinion on any Motion before it, it is not becoming to the Judge to give hearsay stories with regard to his conduct.
MR. BIGGARsaid, that, after this warning from the Chair, he would not enter into the circumstances of the case, but would merely say that, according to his informant, the strongest speech for the prosecution in that particular case was delivered, not by Counsel, but by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald from the Bench. With regard to the particular question before them, he would remark that in Ireland a newspaper which gave an unfair report of the proceedings in a Criminal Court rendered itself liable to prosecution for contempt of Court. If, therefore, the report as to Mr. Justice Fitzgerald was incorrect, the learned Judge had the remedy in his own hands, and it was significant that he had not availed himself of it. It was difficult to see how his action in detaining a prisoner could be defended on any reasonable ground. He would only add that he thought the terms of the Motion which his hon. Friend was precluded from moving
1144
should commend themselves to every fair-minded man in the House.

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—SEARCH FOR ARMS—SUB-INSPECTOR BALL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he rose to call attention to the conduct of the Sub-Inspector of Police at Ballina in searching certain houses of that town for arms. He thought it was always desirable, when questions of this description were raised, as far as possible, some effort should be made to test the opinion of the House with regard to it; and he wished to say that it was not his fault that it was impossible to take that course in the present instance. Mr. Ball occupied the position of Sub-Inspector in the town of Ballina; and he would ask the House to consider the character generally which that town had borne in the report of the police with regard to public agitation, and then to consider the character of the persons who were subjected to the visits made by the Sub-Inspector of Police, and to consider the action of a Sub-Inspector in proceeding to search the houses of some of the most respectable merchants of that town on information which proved to be as unfounded as the search which he instituted proved to be fruitless. So far as his information went, he acted on the information of this private informer, without going to the trouble of consulting any of the local magistrates, or even the Resident Magistrate. The town of Ballina was the largest town in the county of Mayo, and the town in which the great land agitation originated. It was a town that had been subjected to many temptations; it had had the influence of surrounding movements of a very excited character freely brought to bear upon it; and it was a singular fact that throughout all this time the town had been characterized by its loyal and peaceful character. He said that, as far as his information went, the officer in question, acting upon the statement of a private informer, and without consulting any of the local magistrates, not even the Resident Magistrate, proceeded to search the houses of some of the most respectable inhabitants of a town remarkable for being well affected. The Sub-Inspector procured a force of military and police to carry out

  1145
  his object. One of the men whose house was searched was Chairman of the Town Commissioners, and all of them bore an excellent character. Owing to the action of Sub-Inspector Ball, a population of 10,000 in the town, and at least as many more in the country around, had become disaffected, simply because their previous good conduct afforded them no protection. This was a dangerous lesson to teach any people, particularly at a time in the history of Ireland when the country was heated to boiling point by the political passions of the hour. When the Town Commissioners asked the Lord Lieutenant for an inquiry, they meant that they should obtain one of an independent character. But the inquiry they obtained was one conducted by one policeman into the proceedings of another. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had informed the House that it had been conducted by the County Inspector, who endorsed what the Sub-Inspector had done. The right hon. Gentleman also stated, in justification of the action of the Sub-Inspector, that though no arms were discovered, yet in the course of the search a case of revolvers had been removed from one shop to another. He found, however, that the person from whom the right hon. Gentleman derived that information was the very officer whose conduct had been incriminated. He maintained that with police surrounding the house, and stationed at all the doors, it would have been impossible that a case of arms could have been removed. There was no side of this story which did not show the Sub-Inspector of Ballina in an absurd and ridiculous position; and he thought when a gentleman occupying a responsible position had been found so incapable, the very least the inhabitants should be entitled to was to be relieved of his presence. He was not unreasonable enough to ask for his dismissal from the force; but his had been a great blunder, and there was a French proverb which told them that a great blunder was very often worse than a crime. The county Mayo was rather unfortunate. He was not entitled to call attention to Major Bond; but he did not know what grudge the Chief Secretary for Ireland had to Mayo that he should have thought a man who was unfit to be the head of the police in Birmingham was fit to be a Resident
  1146
  Magistrate in Mayo. They had also got there the eccentric Major Traill, whose conduct afforded amusement to the people. He was told that the Major drove into the town of Claremorris lately, and threatened to arrest his shoemaker under the Coercion Act because he had not mended a pair of his old boots. He protested against the people of his country being handed over to those men. He was aware that he was not now at liberty to make the Motion of which he had given Notice, owing to a division having been taken; but he had intended to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the character of the town of Ballina, and that of the persona whose houses were needlessly and fruitlessly searched by Sub-Inspector Ball, aided by a large force of military and police, should have protected them from domiciliary visits, the only result of which has been to create general disaffection and discredit the administration of the law."
  Unless gentlemen occupying the position of Sub-Inspector Ball were taught to exercise discretion in the performance of their duties, he thought the Government were in a fair way of having their difficulties multiplied rather than removed, and having their efforts frustrated when they tried to restore peace and tranquillity to Ireland.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not complain of the tone of the remarks of the hon. Member for Mayo, although the hon. Gentleman had given rather a mistaken description of what had happened in that case. With regard to Major Traill, he could only state that the district under that gentleman's supervision, owing in some respects to his energy, was one of the most peaceable in the county of Mayo. As to the search for arms in Ballina, of course it was a disagreeable thing that such searches should be made; but there could be no doubt that arms were concealed in many parts of the country, and the Government would be liable to much deserved criticism if proper efforts were not made to take arms from those who ought not to have them. The hon. Member was wrong in supposing that the Sub-Inspector in that case had acted entirely on his own responsibility. The whole necessity for the search was acknowledged by the Resident Magistrate, and the arrangements were made between the Sub-Inspector and the Resident Magistrate. Upon consultation with Mr.

  1147
  Henn, it was considered necessary to employ the military in the search, there not being sufficient police for the purpose. Mr. Henn requisitioned the attendance of the military, and was, in fact, as much responsible for the search as the Sub-Inspector himself. It was true that no arms were found; and that was the case in almost every search that was made; but no one doubted that arms existed, or that it was remarkably easy to conceal them, and very difficult to find them, especially by searches that had to be made with considerable warning. With respect to the Chairman of the Town Commissioners, and another gentleman whose houses were searched, there was no suspicion that they were concealing arms; but they had several assistants in their business, and it was to see whether those assistants were breaking the law that the search was made. Upon full inquiry he thought the Sub-Inspector, in consultation with the Resident Magistrate, was justified in the course that was pursued; and in what was done there was a desire evinced to avoid, as far as might be, the giving of all unnecessary annoyance. Therefore, he thought he should have been much disregarding his duty if he had shown displeasure on the part of the Government at the action which had been taken. Arms were in possession of people in Ireland, and were used for very bad purposes; and he thought the House would accept the statement that the Arms Act was passed in order that, as far as possible, arms should be taken out of the hands of those who were likely to make a bad use of them. He admitted that Ballina was one of the most orderly towns in the West of Ireland—at any rate, it was one of which ho heard least—but still it appeared to the responsible authorities necessary, on account of the possible action of some few individuals in it, to make these searches that Sub-Inspector Ball had made. As to the complaint that the Government had merely sent down the County Inspector to inquire into the matter, he should say he thought it the proper course under the circumstances, and also that no evidence was adduced at that inquiry which could justify its being submitted to any other tribunal.
  MR. SEXTONwished to say a few words on the subject of this Motion, which his hon. Friend the Member for
  1148
  Mayo had brought forward in such extremely moderate terms. Although he had no fault to find with the manner in which his hon. Friend had laid the case before the House, he thought his hon. Friend had considerable fault to find with the reply he had received. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman might have spared them his eulogium on Major Traill, one of those Resident Magistrates in Ireland who had done much to promote the state of affairs now existing in certain districts. They heard occasionally in that House very wise counsels from the Ministers of the Crown about the utility of protecting Civil affairs from the interference of the military in England; but the idea had never penetrated the walls of Dublin Castle. If his district were as peaceable as the right hon. Gentleman stated, why did Major Traill deliver from the Bench so much oratory with a strong flavour of gunpowder? The utmost that an official of his peculiar type could boast of was his selection from Dublin Castle, and the utmost that he could claim from Irish Members was the charity of their silence. This town of Ballina was situated partly in the county which he had the honour to represent, and he had some knowledge of it. He knew it to be inhabited by a very peaceable and industrious community; but he believed that its population were willing to take their stand with the rest of the Irish people, and would not claim for themselves an exemption from police indignities which they would not equally claim for their fellow-citizens of any other town. The maxim of the French statesman about too much zeal was not regarded by the Executive Government, and any blunder was readily condoned, provided that it was only directed against the Irish people. When the order went forth from Dublin Castle, the humble policeman or the Sub-Inspector had to obey. He thought he might say, with every confidence in that House, that where searches of this description were carried on in a country struggling with excited circumstances, and in a perilously troubled condition, they ought to be carried out under conditions that would tend to the preservation of the public temper and the public peace. Indeed, there were two considerations which ought carefully to be borne in mind. In the first place, when a police-

  1149
  man was about to institute a search, the Police Inspector ought first to consider well the sufficiency of the evidence upon which that search was to be made; in the second place, he should conduct that search in a careful, and not in an unnecessarily public manner; in the quiet, undemonstrative manner proper to a police officer. In Ballina the houses of the most substantial men were entered, the houses of men of substantial means and moderate principles. Surely these policemen must have known that if they had sent two or three officers, the gentlemen in question would Have allowed them to look into their cupboards and boxes for anything they suspected to be concealed. In England, one or two policemen would have been sent from Scotland Yard, and the whole affair would have been perfectly quietly managed. This was not enough for Sub-Inspector Ball; and he had in the unquiet state of the country, been guilty of a blunder which was a crime. He had gone to the quiet town of Ballina with the force and uproar of a battalion of Uhlans—perhaps his military aspirations had never been gratified before—and for once in his life his love of extensive military parade was satisfied. But the town of Ballina had additional reasons to feel discomfited and outraged; yet that town had been described by the Chief Secretary for Ireland as a quiet town. If these things were done in a green tree, what would be done in a dry? He had one good reason for not asking for the dismissal of Sub-Inspector Ball, and that was because he knew it would be no use. But he thought they might at least ask that his energy, which was his most conspicuous quality—for no one would say that his discretion was on a par with it—might be employed somewhere else than in the town of Ballina. He had made himself notorious and disliked in the place. If the right hon. Gentleman was wishful of preserving the peacefulness of this town in which he took so much pride, he might remove Sub-Inspector Ball to some place where he would be more popular, because not so well known.
  MR. REDMONDdesired to say a few words before the House left the consideration of the subject before them. They had great reason to complain of the way in which the Chief Secretary for
  1150
  Ireland had treated the matter. It had always seemed to him that of the two Acts, that which was called the Protection of Person and Property Act and the Arms Act, the latter was the one which inflicted the greater hardship. Not one place only, but whole country sides, had been searched for arms without a single instance in which they had been found. It was impossible that policemen could be particular as to the information upon which they acted when so many fruitless searches were made. The additional responsibility of the Resident Magistrate only made the case worse. These searches were made at night. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: They were not at night.] Well, if these were not at night, others were. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to regard those searches for arms very lightly. He had expressed a hope that the police would err on the right side—in other words, upon the side of searching the houses of innocent persons. This was very like the recommendation contained in a recent Circular issued by a County Inspector, and for which the Chief Secretary for Ireland was responsible, that the police should shoot men on suspicion. The action of the police in breaking into houses was a great provocation. Why did not the Chief Secretary for Ireland endeavour to prevent this source of disaffection? It was impossible for the Irish Members to assist the right hon. Gentleman in preserving order in Ireland. So long as the right hon. Gentleman had hand, act, or part in the government of Ireland tranquillity would be an impossibility, because the right hon. Gentleman was not a sufficiently strong politician to grasp the situation, or to control the men who, like County Inspector Smith, now acted in the name of the Government of Ireland. It appeared that police officers might issue Circulars inciting to murder without the knowledge or approval of the right hon. Gentleman. That course give rise to irritation and a spirit of retaliation among the people. Was it too much to expect that the right hon. Gentleman would stand up and make this concession to the wishes of the Irish Members, that the individuals who took the course in Ballina which was complained of would be removed from the town? It was often said the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues did not consult with the Irish Members on Irish affairs. If they did

  1151
  consult with them, their course of action, he believed, would be different. But they preferred to go on the even ten our of their way, and pursue a course of action in Ireland which was grounded on absolute ignorance of the real wants of the country, and which was carried out without a single spark of sympathy with the wishes or aspirations of the people. As long as that course of action was pursued the Government would be disgraced by such actions as the issue of the recent Police Circular, and the conduct on which the hon. Member for Mayo had commented to-night. He was not one of those who entirely regretted the continued blundering of the incompetent politicians who were responsible for the government of Ireland, because he was convinced that every blunder they made, every false step they took in the government of Ireland, brought nearer the day when their power in Ireland would be at an end, and when every vestige of British interference in Irish affairs would be swept away along with them.

  PARLIAMENT—INTERFERENCE OF PEERS IN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN, who had on the Paper a Notice that he should call attention to the intermeddling of Peers in the election of Members of Parliament, said, that his Motion involved an accusation against two noble Lords, and some Friends of these Noblemen were anxious to take part in the discussion. He had delayed it from time to time to enable them to make the explanation which they deemed necessary. As they were not present he would not proceed with it on the present occasion.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE ASSISTANT SUB-COMMISSIONERS (KERRY AND WEST CORK).
MR. HEALYsaid, he rose to make some remarks upon the action of the Sub-Commissioners intrusted with the carrying out of the Land Act in certain parts of Ireland. He wished it to be distinctly understood that the statements he was about to make were not within his own personal knowledge. He was merely the mouthpiece of the tenants of Kerry and Cork, who considered they had fair reason to complain of the administration of the Land Act in their
1152
counties. A mass of evidence had been put into his hands showing that many decisions given by Messrs. M'Devitt, Walpole, and Murphy left the rents double and sometimes treble Griffith's valuation. The important point he desired to raise was that those three Sub-Commissioners, Messrs. M'Devitt, Walpole, and Murphy, were operating in one of the most distressed districts in Ireland, and that their decisions had given the utmost dissatisfaction. It was remarkable that Messrs. M'Devitt and Company were hearing the cases on the estates of Lord Kenmare and the Marquess of Lansdowne; and he wanted to have from the Government a distinct denial, if such could be given, that the reason why the Sub-Commissioners who previously acted in those districts (Messrs. Reeves, O'Keefe, and Rice) were removed was not because of the decisions which they gave, and which were satisfactory to the tenants in some cases, but because of a Memorial of landlords in the district asking for their removal, and for the appointment of the present Sub-Commissioners.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member had been misinformed.
MR. HEALYsaid, he made himself the mouthpiece of grievances in the locality. He had not had an opportunity of investigating the matter. In Kerry and Cork there was a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction with the decisions of the present Sub-Commissioners.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he understood the hon. Member to say that these gentlemen were sent to Kerry in place of another Sub-Commission, against which the landlord party had presented a Memorial. There was no Memorial, no such representation from Kerry.
MR. HEALYsaid, he had been informed that the previous Sub-Commission had been sent adrift—if the statements which had been made to him were untrue, it was desirable that they should be corrected—and that Mr. M'Devitt had been appointed a Sub-Commissioner in response to a Memorial of landlords of Cork.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had said there was no Memorial. He thought the hon. Member was alluding to Kerry. There was no Memorial from anybody in favour of Mr. M'Devitt. He never heard of such a thing.
MR. HEALYsaid, that being the case, lie was very glad to hear it, but a solicitor said Mr. M'Devitt got his appointment through his contesting Tyrone, and that he stated in one of his stump speeches—"Now we have our heel on the landlords, and we will crush the life out of them." Afterwards the Duke of Abercorn drew attention to M'Devitt's speeches—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would contradict that—and said he would bring them before the House of Lords, when M'Devitt denied altogether the accuracy of the report, and said that, instead of being a tenant's man, he was altogether a landlord's man.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that was not the case.
MR. HEALYsaid, that story was believed, and they had now the misfortune of having M'Devitt reinstated in the graces of the Government at the expense of the poor tenants. If, however, that statement was untrue, he would give the right hon. Gentleman some statements which were true. He would show the nature of the decisions given by Mr. M'Devitt and Company. In more than one ease the judicial rent was allowed to be nearly 150 per cent over Griffith's valuation, in other cases 40, 50, 70, 100, and 120 per cent over Griffith's valuation. These decisions had given immense dissatisfaction. He gathered that from a letter written on 15th April last, by the Rev. John Savage, C. C., and published in The Cork Examiner. This respectable Catholic clergyman expressed, on behalf of his flock, deep dismay at the removal from the district of the previous Sub-Commission, and the substitution of Messrs. M'Devitt and Company, whose decisions in other places he had no reason to be satisfied with. The district was essentially poor, and it was but fair that the Sub-Commissioners who had some acquaintance with it should have been allowed to remain there. Mr. M'Devitt was a barrister whom the Irish Benchers improperly called to the Bar without having attended his terms, on the express statement that he did not intend to practise. He was no sooner called than he took all the practice he could get. Mr. M'Devitt was a Northerner, and why was he not sent to the North? The poor serfs of Kerry and West Cork were obliged to submit to decisions which he supposed would not be tolerated in Donegal. He had received a commu-
1154
nication from a respected Catholic clergyman on the subject of the recent proceedings of the Sub-Commission. That gentleman said that the Sub-Commissioners were getting completely under the influence of the Government, and of persons high in authority; and their proceedings were such that the people were gradually losing all confidence and all hope on the subject of reduction of rent. He did not ask for the dismissal of Mr. M'Devitt; but he asked that he should be sent elsewhere, and that Mr. John Rice, who knew the district, and was generally respected and trusted by the people, should be allowed to remain. It was a curious fact that those in the district over which Messrs. M'Devitt and Rice had been placed, whose estates would be most interfered with, were Members of the Government. They had Lord Kenmare and Lord Lansdowne in Kerry; and why was it to go abroad, that in consequence of representations made by these Noblemen, men like Mr. John Rice had been removed from the district?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: No such representations have been made.
MR. HEALYasked why Mr. Rice had been removed?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he had no right to speak, and he had no authority in the matter, which lay under the control of the Chief Commissioners. But he believed the reason of Mr. Rice's removal—Mr. Rice was in all respects an excellent man—had some connection with property in the county of Cork, and it was a rule that a man should not exercise jurisdiction in districts where he had interests of his own.
MR. HEALYsaid, he supposed that it was on the same principle that a gentleman who came from Bradford was sent to govern Ireland. Men who knew nothing about countries were the men sent into them. Mr. Rice was a native of Cork, and he had been chosen by Mr. Disraeli's Government as a Member of the Richmond Commission. He was good enough for the Government of Mr. Disraeli; but he was not good enough for the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman apparently considered that the best men to send to Ireland to give decisions on matters vitally affecting the people was a foreigner. The right hon. Gentleman himself was a foreigner, and he thought

1155
the proper way to rule Ireland was by strangers; but the people of Ireland had very good reason to be suspicious of strangers. They knew what invasions led to in times past, and they would not have strangers any longer. They would have none but men whom they trusted; and if the Government refused to appoint these men, they would never produce contentment or peace among the people. He would mention another case in the county of Kerry. That was a case of a County Court Judge, Mr. O'Connor Morris, for whose actions, he admitted, the Government were not responsible. Mr. O'Connor Morris had recently to fix a fair rent for lands, of which the old rent was £3. The landlord's valuator, Mr. Cruikshank, valued some of the land at 10 s. 6d. an acre, the bog land at 4s. 6d., and other parts at 10 s. and 12 s. 6d. an acre. Notwithstanding this evidence on the part of the landlord's valuer, the Judge fixed the rent at £2 12 s. 6d. an acre—only 7s. 6d. below the old rent. Then he would refer to the appointment of Mr. J. R. Headeck as a Sub-Commissioner for Antrim and Derry. He hoped the farmers of the districts over whose interests Mr. Headeck would have jurisdiction would note the fact that Mr. Headeck was a Tipperary landlord, whose rents were considered by his tenants to be so excessive that he had recently been brought into Court by them. A man appointed to fix fair rents should be above suspicion; and it was an extraordinary fact that out of the whole of Ireland the Government should select for the counties of Derry and Antrim a landlord who was on the worst relations with his tenants. He would ask, also, why the names of the Sub-Commissioners had never been furnished to Parliament, as had been promised? The Government ought to appoint men of whom hon. Members sitting on that side of the House could have no complaint to make. That very day he addressed the Attorney General for Ireland a Question concerning Mr. Headeck's appointment; but he received no reply.
MR. W. E. FORSTER, interposing, said, he at once answered that Question by stating that Mr. Headeck was appointed a few days ago. He added that if the hon. Member would give him an opportunity of inquiring into the truth of the charge which had been made he
1156
would give him the required information.
MR. HEALYobserved, that he asked the Question of the Attorney General for Ireland, and that the Chief Secretary for Ireland said nothing about the matter.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he got up and said he should be able to reply to the hon. Member fully next week.
MR. HEALYsaid, he had no recollection whatever of the right hon. Gentleman's reply. One of the Questions he had on the Paper related to Messrs. M'Devitt, Walpole, and Murphy. The right hon. Gentleman read a statement showing the number of appeals which had been made from their decisions. In his opinion, that simply proved that the tenants were poor men, and that they had no hope of justice; whereas the landlords had a powerful association at their back, and were prepared to push matters to the bitter end. The tenants were stricken down in the Courts; but the landlords were supplied with funds and allowed to carry on their own organization. The tenants' organization, as far as it appeared above the surface in the Courts, had been "felonized" by the right hon. Gentleman. In India, he believed, there were political representatives, who sent Reports to the Crown as to the feelings and condition of the people; but there was no one to stand between the Irish people and the Government. The information of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was derived from Executive officers who carried out the functions of the law. Independent men ought to be appointed in the various districts of Ireland to report to the right hon. Gentleman what the feelings of the people really were. Unless it were the intention of the Government to keep up a sense of exasperation, they would take some steps to ascertain the feelings of the Irish people, and to put the administration of Ireland into harmony with those feelings.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IERLAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he thought the hon. Member had made charges against individuals under circumstances of very great unfairness. The removal of Mr. Rice was not mentioned in the Question put by the hon. Member that afternoon. [Mr. HEALY: It was involved in it.] No Notice whatever had been given of it. Mr. Rice was removed by the Land Commission,

1157
and not by the Government. Supposing he had been a person connected with the ownership of land—not as a tenant, but as a landlord in the district—would not the hon. Member himself have said that he was not a proper person to sit as a Judge there? In fact, it had been repeatedly urged by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) in the House that Mr. Bomford, one of the Sub-Commissioners, had been improperly permitted to sit and discharge business in the county of Cavan, with which he was in some way connected. As to Mr. Walpole, everybody who knew Ireland must admit that a more upright gentleman did not exist. The objection raised against Mr. M'Devitt at the time of his appointment was that he was too favourable to the class of tenants. There was, in reality, no more foundation for that allegation than there was for the complaint now made against him. With regard to the charge made against Mr. O'Connor Morris, an able and upright Judge, no Notice had been given of it. When the matter was investigated, no doubt it would be found that that gentleman had good ground for pronouncing the decision complained of. The allegation as to Mr. Headeck was that he was engaged in litigation with his tenants, and that he had treated his tenants badly in Tipperary. If, however, it was a fact that some of his tenants were in the Land Court, it did not at all follow that they and Mr. Headeck were on the bad terms that had been described. It was unfair that statements not founded on facts should be made about a Sub-Commissioner which could only have the effect of prejudicing the community against him. Whatever charge might be brought against the Government, nobody could suppose that they would willingly do anything to bring the Land Act into disrepute. Certainly, the removal of Mr. Rice and the appointment of Mr. Headeck were not made with any such object; and he felt sure that landlords and tenants in the North of Ireland would be calm enough to wait until the charges had been substantiated. It had been insinuated that Mr. Rice had been removed on account of influence exercised by landlords, and particularly by two Noblemen who had been named. He was able to say that this statement was without foundation. If they approached
1158
the Land Commission with the view of interfering with the administration of justice, he was certain what answer they would receive. He urged the extreme unfairness of making charges of this kind, and he asked the public to suspend its judgment, and not to be misled by uncorroborated statements in newspapers and private letters.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that no one had any idea of attributing suicidal conduct to the Government. The fact remained that events occurred which very much astonished the Government when their attention was directed to them. He was aware that the Government were anxious to appoint Sub-Commissioners who would make the Land Act popular; but it was a fact that gentlemen were appointed Sub-Commissioners who had failed to secure the confidence of the classes for whose benefit they were appointed. The Government did not deprecate newspaper criticism in support of their policy, and they should not altogether disregard unfavourable criticism, particularly from friendly journals. The Cork Examiner was very fair and moderate, and yet it said that there were Sub-Commissioners of whom it would be glad to speak with confidence if it could. These questions could not take the Government by surprise if they were fully informed as to the antecedents of the gentlemen they appointed. But when an objection was raised they required three or four days or weeks to obtain information. He recommended the Government to pay more attention to the opinion of fair and moderate newspapers. He was certain that as time went on it would be seen more and more clearly that the whole object of the Irish Party was to make the Land Act more and not less efficient than it now was. It was already admitted on both sides of the House that the Act needed amendment, and there were many Members of the House who were now of the opinion of the small handful of Irish Irreconcilables of six months ago. With the object of permanently removing the grievances of the tenant, the Members of the Irish Party would support any measure that might be introduced on either side of the House, and if the Government would regard them as the mouthpieces of the vast majority of the cultivators of land in Ireland, it would greatly add to the prospect of peace in

1159
that country; but up to the present time the Government had set their face against every kind of counsel pressed upon them from those Benches. Now he asked the Government to turn over a new leaf, and to listen with confidence to the demands of the Irish people, instead of perpetually thwarting all proposals of reform. If they did this they would see the beginning of a new era. If they went a short way towards meeting the Irish Party, they would find that that Party would go a long way towards meeting them. After the heat and turmoil of the present conflict were passed history would admit the fact that on the whole the Irish Popular Party had been right in their contentions and their policy.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Supply—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
(1.) £33,361, to complete the sum for Royal Palaces.
MR. BIGGARcalled attention to the item of £1,300 on page 4 of the Votes for the repair of one of the Palaces. It seemed a very large sum for the repair of one establishment, and he should like to have an explanation of the item.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the sum certainly was rather larger than usual; but it had arisen on account of the necessity of painting the exterior.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £2,178, to complete the sum for Marlborough House.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £90,921, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the Bum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
MR. HEALYwished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works with regard to the Royal Parks. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had recently taken some steps in the direc-
1160
tion of throwing Hyde Park Corner open to the public; and he thought the Members of the House should have an opportunity of knowing what changes the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make. One remark he desired to make in reference to Hyde Park was this—that the whole of Hyde Park and Rotten Row were devoted to the pleasure and amusement of the wealthy and aristocratic classes who could afford to keep their carriages, while the humble plebeian was forbidden all access to them if he could only afford to hire a hansom cab. If he could afford to pay half-a-crown for a hackney carriage, he was able to enjoy the drive; but if he could only pay 1s. for a cab, he was prevented from doing so. If, instead of having only 1s., he happened to have a sovereign, he could go where he pleased; and he (Mr. Healy) wished to know upon what principle it was laid down that the man with only 1s. must not drive in the park, while the man with 20 s. might? Why should the Committee be called upon to vote away the public money in order to give certain privileges to the aristocratic classes who were able to drive their carriages? He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would in future give instructions that the parks should be as freely open to people using hackney carriages and hansom cabs as they were to the more aristocratic owners of private carriages.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had urged the point raised by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down for the last 15 years, and he had divided the Committee upon it; but he had certainly never found himself in a majority. It was monstrous, he thought, that the public, who paid for the parks, should not be allowed to use them, and that the money voted for their maintenance should be practically devoted to the exclusive use of wealthy persons who possessed carriages. There was not a single other park in the whole of Europe in which this exclusive right existed. The great value of a park was that it was a place where the rich and the poor might meet together. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would tell thorn that the traffic would not permit of the admission of other vehicles; but if that were the case, then he (Mr. Labouchere) would suggest that there should be one day on which cabs should be excluded, and an-

1161
other day on which private carriages should be excluded. He remembered the Predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman in the Office of Works, 15 years ago, telling him that poor people derived a special pleasure from looking at the wealthy classes driving along the parks in their carriages. They might, if they liked, look at the wealthy people driving by; but if they desired to take a drive themselves in hired cabs, they were prevented from entering the parks. He claimed that the general public had as perfect a right to the full enjoyment of the parks as the wealthy classes.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he hoped that there would be a more liberal distribution of free seats in the Green Park and St. James's Park. Twelve months ago an assurance was given that a larger distribution would be made of free seats; but, so far from the promise having been carried out, there had been no addition whatever to the free seats, except it was in Hyde Park only. What he desired to point out was that it was not in Hyde Park that a larger supply of free seats was required, but in the Green Park, St. James's Park, Battersea Park, and Victoria Park. Those were the parks to which the working classes went for pleasure and pastime; and in them it was most difficult to find a seat without being pounced upon by the proprietor's agent with a demand for 1d. or 2d. The Green Park and St. James's Park were the rendezvous of the workpeople of Westminster, Lambeth, Soho, and those living in the neighbourhood of the Strand; and these persons were charged 1d. or 2d., according to the size of the chair they occupied. [Laughter, and cries of "No!"] He believed the charge was 1d. for a single chair, and 2d. for an armchair. [An hon. MEMBER: No; only 1d. in each case.] He was glad to hear that there had been an improvement in that respect. He knew that it was so formerly. At any rate, the moment a person sat down in one of these chairs up went the agent of the proprietor, as though he had sprung from beneath it in some way or other, so rapid was he in the collection of the money. He thought that the collection of money for the use of seats in a public park ought to be entirely done away with; but if they could not do away with the payment for seats altogether, then he hoped the First
1162
Commissioner of Works would favourably entertain the proposition for largely increasing the number of free seats in the parks to which he (Mr. Broadhurst) had referred.
MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he would support the request for more free seats in the parks. He was also anxious for further information in regard to the contemplated changes at Hyde Park Corner. He did not propose, however, to discuss the merits of those changes at the present moment; but he simply wished to elicit a statement from his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner as to what his intentions were.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked whether, in regard to the contemplated improvements at Hyde Park Corner, it was proposed to take any money in the present Estimates? He presumed that if the necessary sum were proposed to be voted in a Supplementary Estimate the Vote would be laid in due course before the House, and would afford the proper opportunity for a discussion. He should like to know, in the meantime, how much money it was intended to vote now?
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that it was his intention to take a Vote, probably not exceeding £3,000, in respect of the Hyde Park Corner improvements. That sum was necessary, not so much for the improvement itself, as for the removal of a reservoir which was rendered necessary by the scheme, and which it was also desirable to remove for other reasons. When the Treasury were asked to advance the money for the Hyde Park improvements he was bound to say that his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was of opinion that the improvements were more of a Metropolitan than of an Imperial character, and expressed a doubt whether the House of Commons would feel justified in voting the money necessary to carry them out. His noble Friend, however, considered that he would be justified in asking for a Vote for the removal of the reservoir just mentioned; but that otherwise the whole expense of the improvement should be provided by the Metropolitan Board of Works or by the owners of private property. A Supplementary Vote would be laid before the House later in the Session. With regard to the question as to the seats in the parks raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-

1163
upon-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst), he might say that last year he had expended a considerable sum of money in providing additional seats in Hyde Park; and he had been under the impression that the same course had been taken in regard to St. James's Park. If he should prove to be wrong in that impression, he would undertake this year that an ample provision should be made for seats. No doubt, both St. James's Park and the Green Park were more used by the working classes than Hyde Park; and he should be very sorry that there should be any want of accommodation for them. In regard to the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), he had to say that the complaint they had made in respect of the non-admission of hackney cabs in Hyde Park was one of long standing. In early times hackney cabs were permitted in Hyde Park and in the other parks, and the fact was recorded in the Memoirs of Pepys. The writer of that interesting diary frequently spoke of driving in Hyde Park in a hackney carriage; but at a subsequent period, when he was able to keep a carriage of his own, he appeared to be highly scandalized at the large number of hackney coaches that were to be seen there. At a later date, hackney coaches were altogether prohibited in the Parks, and the prohibition had been maintained because it was considered undesirable that the Parks should be converted into a mere thoroughfare for the use of people driving in cabs from one station to another. The prohibition had only been maintained in that sense; and there was no prohibition, even at the present moment, against the use of hackney carriages hired from a livery stable. The prohibition only applied to cabs hired in the streets. He thought it was for the interests of the public generally that the Royal Parks should not be made the mere medium of traffic from one part of Loudon to another.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there was another point upon which he was anxious to put a question to his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner in reference to the trees in Kew Gardens. He was given to understand that a good many trees had been cut down by the order of the Curator. The Curator pleaded, as
1164
his reason, not that the trees were objectionable, as trees, but that a good deal of flirtation went on beneath them. He thought it was hardly the business of the Curator to destroy the trees or to interfere in flirtations; and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had heard of the action of the Curator, and whether he intended to take notice of it in any way? He had, however, risen for another object—namely, to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £17,680, that being the cost of Battersea Park, Kennington Park, and Victoria Park. He did not understand upon what grounds the cost of all the new parks that were made in London was thrown upon the Public Treasury. It appeared to him that it ought to be paid by the ratepayers of the Metropolis, and that it should not fall upon the taxpayers of the country generally. Those parks had been bought at very great expenditure and by the public money. He believed that Victoria Park was a Royal Park; but he did not know whether the others were or not. He thought the Metropolitan Board of Works ought to take them over, and that it ought to be distinctly stated in the House of Commons that they were not prepared, year by year, to vote large sums of the public money for the maintenance of the parks in the Metropolis. With every desire that these open spaces should continue to exist in the Metropolis, he could not forget that it was a very wealthy Metropolis, and that it ought to pay for the health and enjoyment of its inhabitants. He certainly failed to see why there was any more reason why the public generally should pay for the maintenance of the parks in the Metropolis than that the people of London should pay for keeping up the parks in other parts of the country. He, therefore, begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £17,680; and he hoped that the Amendment would be taken as a hint that a stop must be put to the present habit of throwing upon the Public Exchequer expenses which ought to be borne by the localities.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum not exceeding £73,241, 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 1883, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
MR. A. PEASEwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works if he could hold out any hope that Constitution Hill, from Buckingham Palace to Hyde Park Corner, would be thrown open to the public? It would be a great convenience to the public going by way of Pall Mall and St. James's Street to Hyde Park Corner to have this road thrown open. At present it was necessary that they should go round by a very circuitous route. There was no desire to interfere with the comfort or privacy of the Royal Family in the occupation of Buckingham Palace; but he believed that the route which would be taken would rather add to the privacy of the Palace than otherwise. He believed that the throwing open of the road would be most acceptable to the public; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to see his way to making the suggested alteration.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that, only an hour or two ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) positively stated to him, in answer to a Question, that there was no item in the Votes for constables employed in London on special services, such as gate-keepers in the parks, or at the House of Commons, or in the public gardens. Remembering the answer which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave him earlier in the evening, he would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would explain what was the meaning of the sum of £7,000 which appeared in the Votes for Metropolitan constables, paid specially for their services as constables and as gate-keepers in the parks. The payments, he understood, were for special and extraordinary services performed in the Metropolis. The complaint he had to make was that when similar services were performed in other localities, the cost was thrown upon the local ratepayers. When he put his Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary at an earlier period of the evening, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the most absolute and barefaced manner, if he might say so—["Oh!"] Well, then, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the strongest and most emphatic manner, denied that this was the case in the Me-
1166
tropolis, notwithstanding that he was warned that such an item did appear upon the Estimates. With his usual confidence, the right hon. and learned Gentleman ridiculed the idea, and seemed to take it for granted that it was impossible he could be wrong.
MR. W. H. JAMESasked if the hon. Gentleman was in Order in referring to a past debate in the House?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that if the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) was referring to the debate which had taken place that night he was out of Order.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he was only asking for information. He was much obliged to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) for putting him right; but he merely wished to know why a charge appeared in the Estimates for the special services of constables in London, whereas charges for similar services were thrown on the ratepayers in the country. He thought that the whole of these charges, instead of being included in the Civil Service Estimates, ought to be paid for by the Metropolis itself. He again asked for some explanation whether it actually was the case that special services on the part of constables were inserted in the Estimates when they were rendered in the Metropolis, while similar services in the country were paid for out of the local rates?
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought the hon. Member was wrong in the statement he had attributed to the Home Secretary.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFrose to Order. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in alluding to a past debate?
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that if there was any objection he would not continue the subject. The item referred to was for the services of police in the parks; and, personally, he thought it was a charge that ought to be borne by the local authorities, and not by the public generally. With regard to the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), it was a question which had been discussed in the House in previous years—namely, whether the cost of some of the parks—Victoria, Battersea, and Kennington—should not be borne by the ratepayers? That was a question which might be fairly

1167
considered whenever the new Municipalities were provided for; and as that was a question that was likely to arise shortly, he thought it would be better to defer the subject until it could be properly discussed. Whenever that time did arrive, there were several items on the other side which would also have to be discussed; and he was by no means certain that the Treasury would be a gainer by taking all these matters over. For instance, there was the item of the City Police, of which the City at present bore the whole expense. Whenever the whole question came to be raised he did not think the public would gain much by throwing the expense of the parks upon the Metropolis, and having, on their part, to bear the expense of the City Police. The matter, however, was one which might be deferred until the question of the London Municipality came to be discussed. With regard to Kew Gardens, he had seen a statement in the papers the other day with reference to the cutting down of certain trees. Now, he should no more dream of asking a question of the Curator of Kew Gardens in reference to the maintenance of everything that was beautiful in Kew Gardens than he should of asking a lawyer an opinion about his brief, or a doctor about his prescription. He thought the question was one that might safely be left in the hands of Sir Joseph Hooker, who had the entire interests of Kew Gardens at heart, and who was not likely to allow anything prejudicial to happen to the trees there.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had asked a question about Battersea Park. Now, Battersea Park was a very old friend of the House. The sum of £500,000 was spent some years ago upon Battersea Park; and, at the time that arrangement was entered into, it was understood that the improvements effected in the surrounding property, under good letting, would recoup the Treasury for a considerable portion of the outlay. He was sorry to find that the promise had turned out as he expected it would at the time it was made. After an interval of some 20 or 25 years, the land and building plots, which they were told were to be so profitable, had not been utilized, and the £500,000 advanced by the Treasury had never been recouped. He should
1168
be glad to know what improvements had been made, and what funds were available for paying the large expense of the maintenance of Battersea Park, for which a sum of £5,300 was asked in the present Estimate? He thought that, to some extent, the promise made by the Government at the time the park was taken should be carried out, and that the country should not be saddled with this very large annual charge.
MR. RITCHIEsaid, he must confess that he had heard with much astonishment the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He was somewhat surprised that an hon. Member with such strong Radical proclivities should make a proposal to throw the cost of the parks at Battersea, Kennington, and the East End of London upon the ratepayers; but that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works should give the slightest countenance to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman certainly filled him with amazement. Now, what was the proposal? It amounted to this—that the parks of the rich should be supported out of the Consolidated Fund; but that the parks of the poor in the East End and in other parts of London, used solely for the enjoyment and recreation of the humbler classes, should be supported by the ratepayers. Anything more astounding, coming from such a quarter, it was impossible to conceive; and whether the right hon. Gentleman made such a proposal now or at any future time, he should certainly give it a most uncompromising opposition.
COLONEL NOLANsaid, he wished to ask a question with regard to seed potatoes. He could not find any distinct reference to that subject in this Vote, and yet, when he had raised the matter previously, he had been put off until the present occasion. He wished to know if the Financial Secretary could inform him whether there was any provision in the Vote in regard to seed potatoes?
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that the Vote had nothing whatever to do with seed potatoes.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member clearly thought the Vote referred to the question of seed potatoes, as it made provision for the Botanical Gardens at Kew. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner

1169
of Works would explain what the items were that were included in the Vote.
MR. W. H. JAMESwished to deny the assertion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) that it was desired to pay for the Royal Parks out of the Consolidated Fund, and to tax the public for the East End Parks.
MR. HEALYrose to Order. He wished to know if the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) was in Order in referring to a past debate?
MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he was not referring to a past debate, but to the present debate, in the course of which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had suggested that while the parks in the West End were supported out of the Consolidated Fund, those in the East End should be paid for out of the local rates. If the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had given a little more attention to the debate, he would have found that nothing of the kind had been suggested. So far as the East End Parks were concerned, it was perfectly competent for the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to form an opinion that the Corporation of London had ample means at their command to enable them to support them.
MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought the hon. Member must have been asleep, or dreaming, while the discussion was going on, for he had entirely misrepresented what he (Mr. Ritchie) had said. He had said nothing whatever to the effect that the parks in the East End of London should be supported out of the rates; on the contrary, he had strongly objected to that proposition. The point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was that the Royal Parks—the parks of the rich—should continue to be maintained out of the Consolidated Fund; but that the parks of the East End of London, which were essentially the parks of the poor, should be supported out of the rates. To that proposition he (Mr. Ritchie) entirely objected. There might be some technical distinction between the Royal Parks and the other parks in London; but the people of the Metropolis would fail to understand that distinction, and they would only see, in any proposition of the kind, a proposal that the parks enjoyed and utilized by the rich were to continue to be supported out of the public funds, while those which were used by the poor
1170
were to be paid for out of the local rates. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) must certainly have been asleep, or dreaming, during the time that he (Mr. Ritchie) was making his remarks.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had not the slightest desire that Hyde Park, or any park in London, should be paid for out of the Consolidated Fund. He had only proposed the Amendment, throwing upon the ratepayers the cost of the three parks he had mentioned, because they were the last three which had been taken over. If his proposition were accepted, he should be prepared, at another time, to move that all the parks in London should be supported by the ratepayers of the Metropolis. He had certainly no desire to draw an invidious distinction between the Royal Parks and those which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) represented.
MR. RITCHIEasked why the hon. Gentleman did not include the whole of them in his Motion?
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, his only object in dividing the Committee at all was to register a protest against the expense of the parks being thrown upon the public. He hoped that his proposition would be considered by the Home Secretary, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would insert some such provision in his new Municipal Bill.
COLONEL NOLANdesired to have some particulars about the Vote for Kew Gardens, which was a very large one—namely, £10,000. Was the sum given simply for the support of the School of Botany? If so, it seemed to be a very expensive school. He noticed an item of £800 for a refrigerator; and he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether Sir Joseph Hooker did anything more in connection with Kew Gardens than superintend the school? No doubt the school was a very valuable one; but he thought there might be a distribution of seeds in other parts of the Kingdom, and even in India.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was scarcely necessary to state that at Kew Gardens there was a very valuable School of Botany, and that it did an enormous amount of scientific work. No doubt the Vote for Kew Gardens was large; but that was on account of the variety and enormous quantity of work which

1171
was carried on there. He could hardly say what the amount of work was, or what the value of it was; but it was very well known that the amount of it was very great.
MR. CARBUTTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question which had been put to him as to the use of Constitution Hill. At present a person desiring to go in a cab in that direction had to go round by Park Lane and through the back streets; but if he happened to have a carriage he could go right through the park and along Constitution Hill.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had to apologize to the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. A. Pease) for not having answered the question sooner. He was afraid he could hold out no hopes in regard to the throwing open of Constitution Hill. The question was rather a delicate one; it had not yet been raised, and at present he did not propose to raise it. It was right, however, to say that Her Majesty had given Her consent to the improvements proposed to be carried out in connection with Hyde Park Corner, although, to some extent, they would interfere with Her private gardens at Buckingham Palace. He would make some inquiries as to permission for cabs to cross Hyde Park. He was under the impression that cabs were now allowed to go across the western division of Hyde Park.
MR. HEALYunderstood that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was going to divide the Committee upon his Motion. He presumed that it would be open for him (Mr. Healy), after that Motion was disposed of, to move the reduction of the Vote by a smaller sum?
THE CHAIRMANwas understood to reply in the affirmative.
MR. BUXTONasked whether, if Her Majesty gave up a portion of Her rights in connection with Buckingham Palace Gardens, it was proposed to make any addition to the Palace Gardens in another direction?
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that was not the case. There would be no addition whatever to the gardens of Buckingham Palace; but, on the contrary, there would be a contraction of them.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked what was the meaning of an item in the Vote which stated that the roads at Kew
1172
cost £700 a-year? Were they public roads, or the roads of the pleasure gardens? If they were not in the botanic and pleasure gardens he did not see why they should be included in the Vote.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question—whether any income was derived from the improvements in Battersea Park?
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was mistaken as to the original cost of Battersea Park. The cost was £200,000, and not £500,000. £100,000 had already been repaid by the sale of property; the remaining £100,000 had not been repaid; but there was a certain part of the property let on lease. In all probability something like £60,000 or £70,000 would never be repaid. The park had now been open for a considerable number of years. In regard to the Kew roads, he did not know exactly what the arrangement was; but he would make inquiries.
MR. RITCHIEsaid, there was one question which he would like to put to the First Commissioner of Works upon this matter. During the hours of daylight or sunlight people could walk across Kensington Gardens; but at certain times, ranging from 4 until 7 o'clock, the gates were closed; and he wished to know whether they could not be kept open until a later hour? He was at a loss to understand why the gates could not be kept open to a much later hour, in order to save persons who lived on the other side of the park the trouble and inconvenience of going a long distance out of their way. Of course, he was aware that the keeping of the gates open might involve an additional expense; but the present regulations were a source of so much inconvenience that he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he could speak from personal experience of the great inconvenience which resulted from closing the park gates at so early an hour. He had repeatedly crossed the park in the afternoon, and found the gates closed at 4 o'clock on his return. The rule now in force seemed to him most unnecessary, and he hoped the First Commissioner of Works would take into consideration the desirability of altering it as soon as possible.
MR. O'DONNELLsuggested that the Committee might be able to get through the Business of the evening with a clearer idea of what they were doing by disposing of one matter at a time. Hon. Members had already before them an important question, raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), which had created a great amount of disinterested activity on the part of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). It would be well to come to a settlement of that question first, because he was sure that the subject of seed crops at Kew Gardens, referred to by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Nolan), had been very imperfectly explained to the apprehension of a large number of Members.
COLONEL NOLANsaid, he simply wished to know if Kew Gardens were used, to a considerable extent, for the propagation of seeds and plants for particular purposes, and if there was any other establishment in this country which was used for the same purpose?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and gallant Member was not in Order in raising that question on the present Vote.
COLONEL NOLANremarked that he had carefully avoided alluding to seed potatoes.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there was no other establishment in England used for the purpose alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member. He thought, however, there was one other in Edinburgh; but he understood that no plants were being propagated there.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, as the question before the Committee was the proposed reduction of the Vote by a certain sum of money which included the expenses of maintaining Battersea Park, he was surprised that when the right hon. Gentleman rose to reply to the questions which had been put to him, he should have omitted to answer the very pertinent inquiry addressed to him by the hon. Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien). It was mentioned in connection with Battersea Park that a large sum of money had been advanced some years ago, and the hon. Member for King's County had inquired the amount of the funds derived from the land. He would be glad to know what sum the right hon. Gentleman expected to get this year on account of Battersea Park, because the sum due
1174
in the shape of interest alone was more than enough to cover the item charged for maintenance.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, as the result of the pending division would possibly leave the park at Battersea within the control of that House, he begged, in the interest of the poor clerks and artizans who visited it, especially on Sunday, to ask what necessity there was for tying up the little pleasure boats on that day, without any regard to the feelings of those who would like to use them? He ventured to hope that the arrangements at the park, which would doubtless remain under the control of the House of Commons, would be made to suit the public requirements, and that between then and next year the grievance he had referred to would be remedied. He thought it was pushing Biblical prudery too far to say that we were not to be allowed to amuse ourselves in a harmless manner on Sundays. There were great numbers of young men in the Metropolis who would be glad to use their muscles in the wholesome exercise of canoeing, but who had no chance of doing so in consequence of the present absurd arrangements, the alteration of which, in the direction indicated, he felt sure would confer a considerable boon on a deserving class.
MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had certainly not acted upon the advice he had himself given to the Committee a short time ago, that questions should be dealt with in their proper order; and, therefore, he suggested to the consideration of the hon. Member whether it would not be better to reserve his observations upon canoes until the Navy Estimates were reached? He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, although he had not replied to the question relating to Kensington Gardens, would endeavour to do something in the direction proposed.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would make inquiries into the regulations for closing the gates at Kensington Gardens; and if he found it practicable to alter them in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) he would certainly do so. Of course, he could not hold out any expectation that the gates would remain open all night, because there were many considerations which rendered that unde-

1175
sirable; but if it were possible they should be kept open longer than usual. He had found it necessary to shut up a portion of St. James's Park during the night, inconsequence of complaints made to him by clergymen and others, and he was afraid his hon. Friend might not approve that step. With regard to Battersea park, he reminded the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) that this was not the only park in which there were lakes with boats upon them. It had been usual for many years past to let out boats upon the water in Hyde Park on week days, but not on Sundays, and he was quite satisfied that the public would not wish that practice to be altered. It might be a Sabbatarian view of the case; but he pointed out to the hon. Member that if the boats were let for hire on Sundays a considerable number of persons would be requisite to attend upon them, and these would, in consequence, be deprived of their day of rest. The tendency, on the whole, was to use the parks as places for walking in on Sundays, and there was a general feeling against them being made use of for other purposes, as was the case in former days. He remembered the time when a number of carriages were to be seen in the parks on Sundays; but that was not so now, the reason being, as he believed, that people wished their servants to be employed on Sundays as little as possible. He was sorry to say that there were long arrears of interest upon the money advanced for Battersea Park. The original sum expended was £200,000, of which £100,000 had been repaid.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that, although there appeared to be a conscientious objection to the employment of men to take pence for boat hire on Sunday afternoons, the same objection was not felt to the employment of the persons who took pence on Sundays for the use of chairs in the parks. For his own part, he was unable to see any difference between the two cases.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREbelieved the Committee would understand that chairs were more essential than boats to the comfort of the public using the parks.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 139: Majority 95.—(Div. List, No. 69.)
Original Question again proposed.
MR. HEALYsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving the reduction of the Vote by the odd £921. The right hon. Gentleman, in the reply he had tendered, had not given satisfaction as to this matter of refusing to allow cabs to pass through the Parks. He had only stated that the custom in question was an old one, and that was no explanation. Moreover, the case of Mr. Heeps that the righthon. Gentleman had quoted seemed, so far as he (Mr. Healy) could gather, to be altogether in favour of the argument to which the right hon. Gentleman had replied. When Mr. Heeps was poor he was in favour of being allowed to pass through the Parks in cabs; but when he grew rich he was scandalized at such a proceeding on the part of anybody else. A man who hired a hackney cab for, say, 1s., was not allowed to drive through Hyde Park; but a man who hired a carriage could drive through them as much as he liked. The disability in the case of the person who engaged the cab did not apply to Hyde Park alone, but to Richmond Park as well. It could not be said that the traffic was as great in the latter as in the former; and if there was anything in the argument that people driving in their carriages through Hyde Park, where there was such a large amount of carriage traffic, would be scandalized to see people in cabs admitted amongst them, the same argument could not apply in the case of Richmond Park. Whatever he might do in the matter of Hyde Park, would the right hon. Gentleman, at least, guarantee that in the, comparatively speaking, little-used Park at Richmond the restriction which was complained of would be taken off? This House of Commons was, broadly speaking, a House of rich men—to a great extent an aristocratic Assembly—and it did not come well from a Body, so many of whom were supposed to represent the aristocratic classes, to keep up this disability against the poor. When the House became more and more democratic, as it would become—nay, as it was becoming—no doubt it would put a stop to the Chamber being a preserve for the rich. Rotten Row, the Ladies' Mile, and other rides and drives, were kept up for the benefit of the aristocratic classes. The rich were allowed to air

1177
themselves and their conveyances in these places; and when, on behalf of the poor, it was urged merely that cabs should be admitted within the Park gates, those who made the request were met by the aristocratic classes saying, "Oh! the traffic is too great." Possibly, in the hours during which the aristocratic classes disported themselves in the parks, there might be too much of the present traffic for the admission of traffic of another kind; but there were certain hours during the night and day when fashion did not allow the aristocracy to show themselves in these places, and, during those hours, it could not be said that "the traffic was too great" to admit cabs. At 12 o'clock at night, for instance, the aristocracy were not riding and driving up and down, at any rate, in anything like numbers, and the sight of a hackney carriage would not annoy them, nor its presence interfere with them very much. It would not come between the wind and their nobility. Then, again, there were certain seasons when "nobody" was supposed to be in London; and if "nobody" was in Hyde Park, why was it that the poor were not allowed to drive through it in cabs? In the Phœnix Park in Dublin they could drive in cabs as much as they liked, and the Park was in that way a great boon to the public. People of the middle and lower classes, and, for that matter, anyone, could drive through the Park on Sundays on pleasure excursions; but directly a person in a hackney carriage came to Richmond Park gates he was stopped by a policeman or a "Ranger," and told that he could not go through. Probably if the hackney carriage driver was to remove the number from his conveyance and cover up his badge he might be allowed to drive through; but if he did that, he would be acting illegally, and subjecting himself to a heavy penalty. He (Mr. Healy) moved the reduction of the Vote as a protest against hackney cabs being allowed entrance to the parks, and so that, the attention of the right hon. Gentleman being called to the matter, he might consider it, and, probably next year, see his way to making some concession.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £90,000, 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
1178
the 31st day of March 1883, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—(Mr. Healy.)
MR. EDWARD SHEILsaid, that in the Estimates under the head of St. James's Park, Green Park, and Hyde Park, there was an item for Police; and in another Vote in the Department of "Rangers" there was a sum of £1,273 for "Park Constables." How was it that this high charge for constables was not included in the large item immediately preceding it?
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the constables of the parks were an entirely different body from the Metropolitan Police. The Metropolitan Police were employed in the parks; but, in addition to these, there were constables who were permanent officials there. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was mistaken with regard to Richmond Park. ["No, no!"] Well, certainly, he was not aware of the restriction complained of by the hon. Member. He had recently driven through the park in a fly hired from the Station without being interfered with. With regard to Hyde Park, it was only a matter of public convenience whether or not cabs should be allowed in the drives. From Lancaster Gate to Queen's Gate cabs were allowed; therefore, if it was said that a thoroughfare was required in the park through which cabs could drive, the answer was that it already existed. There was no other drive in which it was considered necessary to allow cabs; but if a thoroughfare was desirable in any other direction, no doubt cabs would be permitted to use it. He objected to this being considered a question as between rich and poor; and, in the interest of the poor themselves, it was important that they should prevent the parks being used merely for traffic purposes, for enabling people to get conveyance from one point to another. The people who used the park went there for enjoyment; and it was, therefore, desirable to limit the use of it as a thoroughfare as much as possible.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he did not think the explanation they had just heard was particularly satisfactory, inasmuch as it left the question just where it was before. It seemed that a certain class of persons might drive in that part of Hyde Park set apart for driving, whilst another class were not allowed that privilege. People who used

1179
their own or hired carriages were allowed to drive there; but people who did not own and could not afford to hire a carriage and wished to go through in a cab were not permitted to do so; and if this was not a question between rich and poor, he was at a loss to know what could be. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of inconvenience to the general public, and it was to be presumed that by "general public" he meant everyone who could afford to keep or hire a carriage. This would remind hon. Members of the old definition of respectability which so much amused Mr. Carlyle—namely, "a man who could afford to keep a gig." As for the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he had been allowed to drive in a hackney carriage through Richmond Park, bold indeed would have been the policeman who ventured to stop the progress of the First Commissioner of Works. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) hoped that the right hon. Gentleman—who, he was sure, had as much contempt for class distinctions as had any Member of the Committee—would give them an assurance that this matter should have his attention.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was not correct as to the condition of things in Richmond Park. If he would go down by rail to Richmond Station and jump into one of the hackney chaises and ask the driver to drive him through the park, he would find that the cabman, although accepting his instructions, would put him down at the gate, and would take him not an inch further. He (Mr. Broadhurst) did not rise to support this complaint in the interests of those he represented, because he did not believe they used cabs very much; but he spoke in the interests of the Richmond cab-drivers, to whom it would be a great convenience and advantage, whilst it would be no damage to the park, if they were allowed to drive visitors from the station through it, just as, at the present moment, private carriages were allowed to pass through. The anomaly came in here—that the hired vehicle with a number on it paid duty to the State, and it was on account of paying that duty that it was not permitted to enter the park, vehicles that did not pay duty being permitted to go through. [A laugh.] Well, cabs, at any rate, paid duty; and the right hon. Gen-
1180
tleman might give the Committee an assurance that he would inquire into the matter, and if he found the statements hon. Members now made correct—that in Richmond Park, where there was no congestion of traffic at any time, these public vehicles were not allowed to drive through—the regulations would be altered as desired.
MR. GREGORYsaid, this question had been treated as one entirely between those who rode in carriages and those who rode in cabs; but he would suggest that there was another class who had to be considered—a class to which he belonged himself—whether in regard to Richmond Park or Hyde Park—namely, those who passed through on foot. He himself was in constant danger in the streets from that rapidly passing vehicle called a "hansom," and also from the "crawling" cab; but in the parks he was free from that danger. He protested as strongly as he could against the introduction of the cab element into the parks.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member who had spoken last but one (Mr. Broadhurst) spoke as though the duty had been removed from all vehicles other than hackney carriages; and how he had arrived at that conclusion—unless, perchance, he had been allowed an insight into the Budget, which was shortly to be brought forward—it was hard to tell. As to this being a question as between rich and poor, he did not think there could be a more expensive habit than driving about in hansom cabs. It was to be hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman gave his attention to this matter, as he was invited to do, he would not give facilities to hackney carriages to invade the parks.
MR. RITCHIEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance to the Committee that he would consider the question of the desirability of allowing hackney carriages to pass through Richmond Park, as there was great distinction to be drawn between cabs in Hyde Park and cabs in Richmond Park. He did not think it was necessary to allow cabs to pass through Hyde Park, as he did not believe they would be able to get more rapidly from one end to the other than they did at present. The state of things in Richmond Park, however, was very different.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, lie should be sorry if he had misled the Committee on this matter. He had said that there was no prohibition against cabs passing through Richmond Park, and he had been of opinion that that was the case; but the hon. Member seemed to dispute it. He would promise to make inquiries into the subject.
MR. HEALYsaid, he did not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, and that if the right hon. Gentleman would promise to consider the subject with a view of increasing the facilities to the public for passing through Richmond Park, he (Mr. Healy) would withdraw his Amendment, and would put a question to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter some time next week. Hon. Members might fairly be satisfied for the present with the right hon. Gentleman's promise. If, however, he (Mr. Healy) was in the House next year he should interrogate the Government as to the desirability of allowing Hyde Park to remain open all day and all night, when the ordinary traffic there could not possibly be interfered with by the admission of cabs.
MR. BYRNEsaid, that he himself had been prohibited from driving through Richmond Park in a fly. He had gone down on two occasions, once he had gone down for the purpose of getting a little fresh air, and that was the occasion on which he was prevented from passing through; but on another occasion, when they arrived at the Park Gates, the driver said they were going to Lord John Russell's, and they were allowed to proceed. From this it had seemed to him that the Park was not so much for the public as for Lord John Russell.
MR. SCHREIBERsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the condition of the Achilles in Hyde Park. What, he supposed, had originally been a flaw in the casting had developed, under the joint action of time and the London atmosphere, into a serious wound, not, as might have been expected, on the heel, but on the calf of the right leg. The condition of the statue gave him the impression that if it was not for the coat of mail behind it, the leg would break off and the statue fall forward. He had only risen for the purpose of calling attention to this matter.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would certainly inquire into the matter.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £31,110, 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 1883, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."
MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to make a suggestion to Her Majesty's Government, which he thought would facilitate the course of Public Business, and it was, that they should now agree to Progress being reported. The noble Marquess the present Leader of the Government (the Marquess of Hartington) had announced that he intended to-night to make a proposition which he himself would admit was of an unprecedented nature. It was one to which the House could not be expected to assent without, at least, some discussion. In order that that discussion might take place, he suggested that the Government should agree to the Chairman reporting Progress.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not propose to go beyond the next Vote. It would be convenient if the Committee would consent to take that. ["No, no!"] If he thought it would necessitate a long discussion, he would not suggest that they should take the next Vote. They, however, would be able to deal with the next Vote in a very short time.
MR. HEALYsaid, if, as the noble Lord stated, it would not take them long to dispose of the next Vote, it would not take them long when it came on again.
Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 113.]
(Mr. Hibbert, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)

COMMITEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock, resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
Mr. CHAPLINsaid, that on this occasion he rose for the purpose of opposing the Motion that the Bill be taken at 2 o'clock on Tuesday next. He had some reason to complain of the very scant Notice that had been given to the House of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to appropriate the Tuesdays for the rest of the Session. It was true the noble Lord had made an announcement to that effect last night; but he (Mr. Chaplin) should like to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which that announcement was made. He did not say it was the fault of the noble Lord; but, whosoever the fault, it was the fact that the Motion was made during the dinner-hour, when the House was nearly empty, and nine out of ten Members in the building were not in a position to know that such an announcement had been made. Let the House for a moment consider what were the Motions that were to be superseded in this high-handed way by the action of Her Majesty's Government. He had looked at the list of Motions for Tuesday, and found that there was a Motion to be made on the subject of Lunacy, and another on the much-vexed question of the Deceased Wife's Sister. Whatever might be the opinions they entertained on the last-named subject, there could be no doubt it was one which excited very considerable interest in the House and very widespread interest in the country. Then, he observed, there was a Motion down for leave to introduce a Bill for Sunday Closing, which was also a question that excited great interest in the country and in the minds of many hon. Members in the House. There was, further, a Motion by an Irish Member in regard to the remuneration of teachers in primary schools in Ireland. Even this did not exhaust the whole list; because there were other Motions which
1184
would be brought forward on Tuesday, if opportunity occurred, which did not appear on the Paper. He happened to know of one himself—a Motion in which he was interested, which he submitted to the House of Commons last year, and which he had been anxiously waiting for an opportunity of bringing forward again this year. The question was one which excited great interest in the agricultural community of this country. He was anxious to call attention to this—that, in spite of all remonstrances from the Opposition side of the House last Session, it was the fact that the importation of diseased cattle into this country had been permitted almost every month. This was a state of things which caused great anxiety and alarm amongst the agricultural portion of the community, and it occurred at a period when the interests of agriculture were most depressed, and when the condition of the agricultural classes deserved the earnest attention of Parliament and the country. The Motion on that subject would be superseded entirely if this proposition of the noble Lord were accepted. But he wished to remind the House that it was not only the Motions which stood on the Paper for Tuesday next, but the Motions for every succeeding Tuesday in the Session, which would be superseded if the noble Lord's Motion were adopted. On consulting the Order Book, he found that the first Motion of importance down for a Tuesday after the Tuesday he had referred to was one which would ask the House of Commons to declare that the maintenance of the Church Establishment in Scotland was indefensible. No one who was at all acquainted with public feeling in Scotland, whatever opinion they might entertain with regard to it, could deny that this was a question which excited immense interest in Scotland at the present time; and it was a question which he should think, judging from what had fallen from him with regard to it, possessed considerable interest for the noble Lord himself. An hon. Member sitting on his left (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), he also found, had a Motion down on the Paper for a Tuesday—a Motion of immense importance, in which he proposed to call the attention of the House of Commons to the recent course of events in Egypt, and move a Resolution. This subject was one which deserved the attention of the House, and

1185
which ought not to be summarily disposed of by the action of the Government in taking the days of private Members. This Motion was followed by one standing in the name of a most devoted and constant supporter of the Government—the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands)—and it had reference to the present enormous amount of the National Expenditure. This Motion was practically a Vote of Censure on the Government for the extravagant expenditure in which they were indulging at the present time. He (Mr. Chaplin) should like to know what would have been said by the other side, supposing the Conservative Party had been in power, and they had been guilty of a similar expenditure to that which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench were incurring, and a Vote of Censure on them had been proposed, and they had endeavoured to supersede it by appropriating private Members' days? There was a vast number of other Motions—beyond those he had mentioned, he saw a list of eight or nine, all of them deserving of the attention of the House of Commons—which hon. Members were waiting for an opportunity of bringing forward. There was one which related to the question of arrears of rent in Ireland; another which called attention to the progress of Russia in Central Asia. Although it was perfectly true that there had been four or five occasions of late on which the House had been counted out on the nights which were appropriated to private Members, they must remember that these "counts out" had been very much the fault of Her Majesty's Government in not assisting, as they ought to have done, in keeping a House; and that it had so happened that those private Members who had Notices on the Paper which did possess great interest to the House of Commons had not been fortunate enough to obtain a place on the Paper, which gave a reasonable hope that their Motions were likely to be considered. All these Motions to which he had alluded were to be sacrificed by the action of the Government. If the Government had intimated to the House that they intended to raise any question of great importance on Tuesday; if they had given the smallest idea, for instance, that the House might expect to hear from them a statement on a subject
1186
which all classes were waiting so anxiously to hear something about—namely, the policy they proposed to pursue in Ireland for the future, in the place of that which had so disastrously collapsed—or, indeed, if they had given the House some reason to imagine that they intended to adopt some proposal really to facilitate the progress of Public Business in the House, and which would have commended itself to the general sense and feeling of the House of Commons, then, he believed, on both sides of the House, there would have been a general disposition to give them every opportunity they sought; but the House had heard of nothing of the kind. On the contrary, judging from the utterances of the Government, there was every reason to believe that they intended to proceed with their 1st Resolution as to Public Business in the House, without any alteration or modification whatever, although it was repugnant to almost every hon. Gentleman on that (the Opposition) side, and to the vast majority on the Ministerial side of the House. Practically, it came to this—that they were asked to sacrifice all the days of private Members for the rest of the Session in order to give facilities to the Government for proceeding with proposals which did not commend themselves in any considerable degree to the general sense or feeling of the House. But he thought he might, perhaps, on even broader grounds than these, ask hon. Members to resist this Motion. Unless he was mistaken, the present Government last Session appropriated a larger amount of public time than had ever, in his recollection, been appropriated by an Administration; and what had been the result? Nearly the whole of that time was devoted to the consideration of Irish questions, and to the development of what they were pleased to call the Irish policy of the Government; and what had followed on that, which he would call their misuse of so much time? Why, it was described the other night by an hon. Member who was a most devoted and consistent supporter of Her Majesty's Government—a Member for whose opinion the Government entertained the utmost respect, and whom they had appointed to serve in a most responsible position in Ireland—he was speaking of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw). This hon.

1187
Member had said that what had followed on the policy of Her Majesty's Government, to which so much of the public time had been devoted, was this—"that at the present moment"—he (Mr. Chaplin) was quoting the hon. Member's exact words—"there was absolute war between the Government and the people of some counties of Ireland." If the Government had so misused the time placed at their disposal last Session, and then called upon private Members to sacrifice the days appropriated to private Members, and such results were to follow from that sacrifice, the less time that was in future placed at the disposal of the Government the better—for, so far as he was able to form a judgment, the more time they got, the more mischief they did. He therefore proposed to omit the words "at Two of the clock."
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Two of the clock."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I am not going to enter into the large question which my hon. Friend has raised; but, with every wish to further the Business of the House, there is one matter upon which I wish to ask a question of the noble Marquess, not relating to any Motion for Tuesdays, but to the Bills which come after Motions. Very often on Tuesdays the Motions disappear, and the Wednesdays are absolutely absorbed already, so that no one has a chance of putting down a Bill for fair discussion. The only chance, therefore, is that any Bill which it is wished to promote should be taken on Tuesday, when the Motions are practically disposed of. But if the Government take four hours from the Tuesday Sitting, there is very little chance for such a Bill, and its chance is almost reduced to a nullity. It is sometimes said that the House of Lords have not done much work; but they have undoubtedly passed one or two Bills of importance, and it is with regard to one of those measures, which deals with a question of vital importance at the present moment, especially having regard to the recent agricultural depression, that I wish to ask a question—I mean the Bill relating to Settled Estates. I shall not enter into the
1188
merits of that Bill, but it deals with that question in a large and comprehensive spirit; and I think it is due to the trouble taken by the Lord Chancellor upon the matter that the House of Commons should express its opinion upon the second reading of this Bill before any long time shall have elapsed. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that it is a matter of great importance, and one in which great interest is felt by the country. If the Government are going to take the whole of the Tuesdays into their own hands, I hope I may have an opportunity of taking a discussion upon the second reading of that Bill. I quite admit that, it being down for Tuesday, which is a Motion day, there is some chance of getting it on; but if you take half of Tuesday away, that chance is reduced to a nullity. I hope, if the Government persist in this Motion, some facility may be given for the discussion of that measure.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) into the remarks he has made with reference to the Procedure Rules of the Government, or their policy in Ireland. No doubt, the hon. Member thinks that any opportunity is a sufficient peg upon which to hang an attack upon the Government; but I am under the impression that sufficient time has been given to those subjects, and that, at all events, there will be other opportunities, perhaps more appropriate than this, for discussing them. The fact is that, although the time has varied in different ways, the practice of asking for Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays has been resorted to in previous years very much earlier than is now proposed. In 1878, when the Conservatives were in power, five Morning Sittings had actually been held before the date at which I am now addressing the House—namely, on March 19th, for Supply; on March 26th; on March 29th, for the Mutiny Bill; on April 12th, for Ways and Means; and on April 16th, for the Budget Bill. The hon. Member says the House might have considered this proposal if we had any measure of first-rate importance to bring forward. The hon. Member has altogether omitted to state whether he considers the Municipal Corporations Bill of importance or not. It does not appear to be one in

1189
which he takes any interest; but I venture to think it is, at least, of as much importance as any of those I have enumerated, and which, during 1878, were discussed at five Morning Sittings before this date. Then the hon. Member says we are going to appropriate the Tuesdays. That is putting the case a little too strongly. We are only going to ask the House to give us the Morning Sitting, and the Evening Sitting will remain for private Members; and if private Members will only avail themselves of the Evening Sitting they will still have as long a period for the discussion of any Motion as they have thought it desirable to take on any Tuesday up to the present time this Session. The hon. Member has alluded to some of the Notices, and he appears to consider that they relate to matters of very great importance. All I can say is, that it is extremely unfortunate that all the importance and apparent interest in these Motions should have managed to postpone themselves until a Tuesday at the end of April, and that, on those successive Tuesdays on which those measures of importance might have been brought forward, the House has been so unfortunate that nothing has been presented for its consideration except matters which could not attract the attention of a quorum of 40 Members. The hon. Member reproaches the Government with not having kept a House; but it is impossible for the Government to take that responsibility. It never has been taken by the Government. I do not think a quorum of 40 Members is an unreasonable proportion to ask the House to form; and if an hon. Member has a Motion to bring forward, and cannot secure the attendance of 40 Members without the assistance of the Government, I think he has no great reason to complain if the Sitting is cut short. The hon. Member has raised the consideration of subjects which are still on the Paper for discussion. I make this proposal, in great part, for the purpose of suggesting a way of preventing time from actually being wasted; and, as I have already said, on six successive Tuesday nights, although there is a great deal of work to be done, the House has adjourned within a few hours of meeting. That, so far as the Government are aware, is a state of things extremely likely to be repeated; and we
1190
think it will he for the convenience of the House and in the interests of the public that, at all events, the mornings of these days should be applied to making progress with Public Business. There is one other ground upon which I may appeal to the House to assent to this Motion. I think that any Member who has attended the course of Business during the present Session must have observed how large a proportion of the time nominally appropriated to the purposes of the Government is virtually appropriated to independent Members. The hon. Member talks of our appropriating the time of private Members; I have shown that we do not appropriate the whole of Tuesdays. We only ask for a certain portion of Tuesdays by taking a Morning Sitting; and if hon. Members will recollect how many Mondays and Thursdays, when Supply has been on the Paper, almost the whole time has been spent in Motions that the Speaker leave the Chair, I think they will come to the conclusion that some reciprocal concession is due to the Government. The hon. Member opposite said a short time ago that every delay in Business is owing to the mismanagement of the Government, and the Prime Minister said he never recollected a time when that statement was not made by the Opposition. I dare say it has often been made with considerable truth; but, at the same time, I think the House must admit that it is impossible for us, or any other Government, to make bricks without straw; and if the whole of the time on nominal Government nights is to be appropriated by discussions on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, and we are not allowed the privilege which has been given to other Governments in the matter of Morning Sittings, I do not see how the House can expect the Government to make any progress. With reference to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), the Government altogether acknowledge the importance of the Bill to which he has made reference. That Bill was, I believe, accepted and supported by the Representatives of the Government in "another place," and I have no doubt whatever as to its importance. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the prospects of taking a discussion on its second read-

1191
ing are somewhat remote. I do not know that I can recollect any recent occasion upon which the discussion of an important Bill has been able to take place on Tuesday night; and, therefore, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman makes any great sacrifice in regard to the proposal I now submit. I am quite certain, however, that my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government will be willing to admit the importance of the subject, and to make any arrangement by which it would be possible to give an opportunity for its discussion. I trust the House will agree to what I believe is a thoroughly precedented proposition. I may now add that, although we propose to ask the House to give us a Morning Sitting on every remaining Tuesday of the Session, the only question before us now is that a Morning Sitting shall be taken on Tuesday next.
MR. GORSTsaid, he hoped that the House would not be insensible to the observations of the noble Marquess; and if the noble Lord had asked the House to devote one Tuesday to the transaction of Government Business, he did not think that proposal would have been met with the opposition which had now been evoked.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I said, in giving Notice yesterday, that my intention was to ask the House to give us, as a rule, Morning Sittings on Tuesdays, but that nothing was now before the House except a proposal for a Morning Sitting on Tuesday next.
MR. GORSTsaid, it was the Notice of the noble Lord that he had that design on the rights of private Members which caused alarm. There was no action he studied in the opposition to the late Government with more interest than the noble Lord's own example. He found that in 1875, which was the first complete Session of the late Conservative Government, when they made a proposal, which, he admitted, went further than the present proposal—namely, to take the whole of Tuesday, June 22nd, the noble Lord, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, thought it his duty to come to the House and protect the rights of private Members. That was rather a remarkable Session, because the time of the Government had been greatly taken up, in the early part of the Session, by the renewal of the Peace Preservation Act, which had been in force for five
1192
years, and a great deal of time was wasted on the discussion of that Bill; but the noble Lord, on the 22nd of June, not only complained of the conduct of the Government in wishing to appropriate the time of private Members, but made an observation, on the proposal to take Morning Sittings, which induced the impression that he would hardly have made such a proposal as he now placed before the House. The noble Lord said the Government had made a liberal use of Morning Sittings, that had begun as early as the 16th March. There was another Morning Sitting on the 30th April; another on May 4th; another on May 11th; and the Morning Sittings began, as a rule, on May 24th in previous years. He (the Marquess of Hartington) found that the exceptional rule was never adopted earlier than May 11th, and the formal Resolution had been adopted on May 26th, June 3rd, or July 2nd. The example of the noble Lord, in making these observations, had such an effect on the present Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett), who was at that time very jealous of the rights of private Members, that he moved an Amendment, resisting the proposal to take the days of private Members, and made some strong observations on the importance of preserving the rights of private Members, which, no doubt, if he were in his place to-night, he would now have repeated. He called upon the then hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) and other hon. Members to support his Resolution; and so impressed were the Government of that day of the reasonableness of that opposition, that they consented to the adjournment of the debate until the following Thursday. Mr. Disraeli being present on the Thursday, the Motion was not discussed, but was, for the time, abandoned. In consequence of the impression made by this opposition by the noble Lord and his Friends, in 1876 the regular Tuesday Morning Sittings did not begin until June 13th; in 1877 they did not begin until June 19th; in 1878, which was the year quoted by the noble Marquess, the general taking of Morning Sittings did not begin till June 4th; while in 1879 they only began on June 10th. He (Mr. Gorst), therefore, thought he was quite justified in saying that if the Government were now asking for a I Morning Sitting for the specific purpose

1193
of making progress with the Corrupt Practices Bill, it would be wise for the House to agree for that particular purpose; but if the Government were, as the noble Lord threatened, going from Tuesday next to take every succeeding Tuesday, and so extinguish, to a great extent, the rights of private Members, he thought he was justified in applying to such Parliamentary proceedings the epithet "unprecedented."
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was informed that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, on a former occasion, had referred to him. He had not been aware that the right hon. Gentleman had done him that honour; but the sentiments which he had expressed on that occasion were identical with those which he entertained now—namely, that the proposal to commence Morning Sittings was really one which it would be unwise for the House to decline to adopt. In regard to the question of "counts out," and the duty of keeping a House on private Members' nights, he ventured to differ from the opinion expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) was wrong in declining, on the part of the Government, any responsibility for the "counts out" which had taken place on various Tuesdays during the present Session. He agreed with the noble Lord that it had never been considered the duty of the Government of the day to keep a House on the days devoted exclusively to the Motions of private Members. The noble Lord also referred to the fact that much of the time which was nominally placed at the disposal of the Executive Government had been, during the present Session, monopolized, to a very great extent, by private Members in availing themselves of the opportunities afforded to them, on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, of bringing forward independent Motions of their own. But the noble Lord might have gone a little further. He might have referred to the fact that not only had those legitimate opportunities of calling attention to grievances before going into Committee of Supply been taken advantage of by private Members, but that during the present Session there had been more than one instance, on a Government
1194
night, in which the very illegitimate practice had been resorted to of moving the Adjournment of the House at the time of Questions. He ventured to call the attention of the noble Lord, and of the Government generally, to the fact that if the legitimate opportunities were taken away from private Members, they would invariably find that the temptation was the greater to have recourse to the illegitimate practices he had referred to, and that private Members would adopt less orderly means for calling attention to grievances, and for eliciting the opinion of the House upon Ministerial answers to Questions, which seemed to annoy them, and which were deemed unsatisfactory. The Government, in the New Rules of Procedure, proposed to take away the opportunity of moving the Adjournment of the House at the time of Questions; and the proposal afforded an additional reason why the non-official Members of the House should feel disposed to scrutinize very closely any additional weapons that were proposed to be placed in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. He hoped the noble Lord would not lose sight of the fact that by proposing to take away from the Members of the House the time-honoured precedents under which they were able to bring forward almost any matter in which they took a legitimate interest, the Government had contributed largely to those disorderly practices which, undoubtedly, seemed to have made considerable way during the time that the present Ministry had held the reins of Office. He hoped that the noble Lord, seeing that the feeling of a large section of the House was decidedly opposed to the proposal which he had brought forward, would reconsider the decision to which he (Mr. J. Lowther) hoped the Government had not definitely arrived; and that he would, at any rate, allow the ordinary proceedings of the House to take their usual course until such a period of the Session had arrived as would enable the Government to assure the House that they had certain definite measures to submit, and to ask the House to give up its time for that purpose. When this system of Morning Sittings was first introduced, he remembered that it was distinctly laid down at the time by Mr. Disraeli that they were only for the progress of Bills in Committee. If the noble Lord had

1195
his Hansard in his hand, he would be able to see at once that that was the ground upon which the concession of Morning Sittings was originally advocated on that (the Opposition) side of the House. It had always been held that Morning Sittings should not be encouraged except when the pressure of Public Business was very great, and there were specific measures to bring forward.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he merely rose in order to point out that Her Majesty's Government were not so blameless and so free of responsibility in regard to recent "counts-out" on Tuesdays as they were endeavouring to make out. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. J. Lowther) said it had never been the habit for the Government of the day to admit that it was any part of their duty to keep a House on the days devoted to the use of private Members. But he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) apprehended that when the Government put an important Motion down upon the Paper, it really became their duty to keep a House in order that they might have an opportunity of bringing it forward; and that was precisely what had occurred in the present Session. On two, at least, of the days on which the House had been counted out, the Government had put down a most important Motion for the appointment of the Public Accounts Committee. Up to the present time there was no Public Accounts Committee in existence. On three or four occasions the Motion had been put on the Paper for Tuesday, and yet the Government took no pains whatever to keep a House. Under these circumstances, he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last that the Government were altogether free from responsibility for having allowed the time of the House to be uselessly frittered away.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he happened to have been present on five of the occasions when the House was counted out by Mr. Speaker; and he might, therefore, be supposed to be a witness upon the question now under consideration. If the noble Marquess simply proposed that the Government should have a Morning Sitting next Tuesday, and that the propriety of continuing Morning Sittings on the subsequent Tuesdays should be reserved for future discussion, he should have nothing further to say;
1196
but he gathered that the real intention of the Government was to take possession of all remaining Tuesdays during the Session. He was bound to say that, on three of the occasions on which he had been present, when it was moved that Mr. Speaker should count the House, the Prime Minister was in his place, and on two of them the right hon. Gentleman was taking notes, in order to answer questions of very great importance which had been raised in the discussion—once upon a Scotch question, and once upon an Irish question. On each of those occasions the Prime Minister was upon the Front Bench when the House was counted out. In one case there were 38 Members present, and in the other 34. The right hon. Gentleman remained on the Treasury Bench all the time prepared to take part in the debate, and to answer the various questions of importance which were raised; but, nevertheless, the House was allowed to be counted out. He must confess that that was a circumstance which he had never witnessed, either in the time of Mr. Disraeli or of Lord Palmerston. It was said that the Government had themselves arranged for these "counts out" on Tuesdays, in order that they might say to the country—"See how impossible it is to conduct the Business of the country unless we carry our Resolutions." He thought the Government were to blame for not having taken the entire Sitting on Mondays for the purpose of proceeding with the Estimates on that day without the interposition of any other Motion. That course might have been adopted from the very commencement of the Session, as it had been in other years, the only stipulation being that, on the first occasion upon which a particular class of Estimates was submitted, one Resolution having strict relation to them might be discussed. But no proposal of that nature had been submitted to the House this Session, and the result was that the House found themselves engaged in the consideration of the Estimates at 3 o'clock in the morning, and that many of the Votes were taken without any due and adequate discussion at all. It was said that this course had been taken by Her Majesty's Government, and that "counts out" on no less than six Tuesdays had been tacitly assented to, so that they might go to the country and impress the

1197
people with the absolute necessity of the clôture. So far as the future Tuesdays of the Session were concerned, he had a special interest in Tuesday, the 2nd of May, seeing that a Motion in his name stood first on the Paper. The second Motion on the Paper was one by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian), who desired to raise the important question of addressing Her Majesty praying her to withhold her assent to the Statutes proposed by the University of Oxford Commissioners for Jesus College. His (Sir John Hay's) Motion was even of greater importance, and he had very little doubt that he should be able to get a quorum, even if he were compelled to put it off until 9 o'clock. It was as follows:—
"That the detention of large numbers of Her Majesty's subjects in solitary confinement, without cause assigned, and without trial, is repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution, and that, to enable them to be brought to trial, jury trials should, for a limited time (in Ireland), and in regard to crimes of a well-defined character, be replaced by some form of trial less liable to abuse."
He might almost suppose that Her Majesty's Government did not wish to have that question discussed, and that they intended, if possible, to prevent its discussion. He had, however, been promised so much support that he trusted, even if it were deferred until 9 o'clock, that he should obtain a fair hearing, and that the question would be duly considered. His own opinion was that the Government ought to be anxious to give facilities for the discussion of such a question rather than endeavour to defeat it by a side wind. At the present moment, and in the present state of Ireland, there could be no more important question for consideration than that of the persons who had been so long detained without trial.
MR. DILLWYNremarked, that hon. Members opposite professed great zeal for the rights of private Members, and called upon Members on the Liberal side of the House to participate in their feeling; but he did not think their zeal was quite pure in the matter. The hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) mentioned the case of several Members who had been shut out and prevented, by the counting out of the House, from bringing on their Motions; but towards the end of his speech the hon. Member let the cat out of the bag, and showed
1198
that the real desire on the part of hon. Members opposite was to stop any Government Business from being transacted at all. The hon. Member said that the measures introduced by the Government had been so objectionable in their character and so dangerous that he wished to see them stopped altogether, and that was the reason of his opposition to the present proposal. ["No!"] At all events, the hon. Member gave that as his own reason for the Amendment he moved; and he (Mr. Dillwyn) had no doubt that that reason was the very reason which would commend the Motion of the noble Marquess to the votes of hon. Members who sat on that (the Ministerial) side of the House.
MR. HEALYsaid, he should like to say why he had not the smallest objection to the Government taking a Morning Sitting on Tuesday; but why he should view with some anxiety any proposition to give up all private Members' nights to them for Morning Sittings. As yet the Government had given no indication of what their policy in regard to Ireland was to be; and if Morning Sittings were to be used for the purpose of passing a Coercion Bill for Ireland, he should give to the proposal the most strenuous opposition in his power. He would remind the House that Her Majesty's Ministers were already pledged with regard to a variety of measures, not one of which had as yet seen the light. One of these measures was for the extension of Municipal Government, others for Grand Jury Reform, Poor Law Reform, Bankruptcy, the Repression of Corrupt Practices at Elections, the Conservancy of Rivers and Prevention of Floods, the Codification of the Criminal Law, the amendment of the Laws affecting Patents, and the establishment of a Peasant Proprietary. Upon five of these subjects the Government stood positively pledged to introduce reforms, and in regard to three of them the pledge was given in the Queen's Speech. Not one of these Bills, nor, indeed, not a Bill upon any subject whatever, had been printed. Under these circumstances, until the Government showed their hand, it was not to be expected that the House would tacitly give up all its privileges, and enable Ministers to appropriate the whole of private Members' days to Morning Sittings. He thought the House should be fairly informed what

1199
the programme of the Government was, and what the measures were which they desired to carry out. He strongly objected to take any step in the dark, and he would strenuously resist any proposition to give continuous Morning Sittings to the Government until they stated the way in which they proposed to arrange their Business, and the use to which they intended to put the Morning Sittings. At the same time, he had no objection to give up next Tuesday. He was not about to enter any protest against the counting out of the House, for he had on several occasions approved the Speaker's attention being called to the fact that 40 Members were not present; and he should ever be willing to support a Motion to that effect. It had always appeared to him an extraordinary thing that millions of money should be voted when but a small number of Members were present; and he was inclined, on a future occasion, to move that the number required to form a quorum should be enlarged.
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he would remind the noble Marquess that there were some very important Motions upon the Paper for next Tuesday. Amongst those was the Motion of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. R. T. Reid), which excited a great deal of public interest, and which so large a number of Members of that House were pledged to support; and also that of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton), which, if the House met at 9, would, no doubt, occupy it until half-past 12 o'clock. The effect of the Government proposal to take Tuesday as a Morning Sitting, for the purpose of interposing another Motion, would probably be that the hon. Member for Hereford would have no chance of bringing on his Motion in regard to the Deceased Wife's Sister. If that were so, the responsibility would rest with the noble Marquess.
VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, as the Government proposed to ask for a Morning Sitting, not only on Tuesday next, but on every Tuesday during the Session, hon. Members would be glad to understand that the Government would give timely Notice of their Motions on that subject, so that their proposals might be adequately discussed.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought it was not a fair argument to say that
1200
private Members had a very slight appreciation of their rights, because they did not keep a House on Tuesdays. The fact was that private Members had no corporate interest in any particular Motion. Before the House could take any interest in private Motions it was necessary that they should be laid before it, and when this had been done it would be an easy matter to keep a House on a future occasion. However important the question raised might be, unless this were done only five or six Members might know anything about it. The difficulty was that Motions had often to be introduced on the responsibility of a Member who had not made his position in the House; and in that case, unless the Government contributed to the keeping of a House, the Member, whose Motion might raise a question of great public importance, did not even obtain the opportunity of laying it before the House. Again, it was impossible to keep a House for private Members unless the Government accepted the responsibility of so doing, because there was scarcely any private Motion which would have more than a dozen backers. But he regretted to see that the occupants of the Front Benches were acting upon the principle that they had no responsibility towards private Members in this respect. He felt convinced that if this policy were pursued, a great many private Members would feel themselves relieved from their responsibility to the Government on the Government nights; and he could strongly corroborate the statement made by an hon. Member that evening, that, as surely as the Government prevented private Members bringing forward their Motions on legitimate occasions, the illegitimate occasions which would be availed of would multiply. It was neither in the purview of the proposed New Rules nor in that of the Rules now existing to prevent illegitimate occasions arrising; and the Government of the day would therefore do well to take great care that the Business on Tuesdays, up to 12 o'clock, should not be interrupted by "counts." He could quite understand the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench not wishing to throw stones at the Government about the matter of not keeping a House on Tuesdays, for both Parties appeared to be in permanent conspiracy against non-official Members in this respect. As

1201
he had before pointed out, the result of the present practice would be to increase the temptation to new Members to take illegitimate, if they could not find legitimate, opportunities of bringing forward their Motions.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, there was no intention on the part of the Government to move any general Resolution with respect to Morning Sittings on Tuesdays, as the noble Lord the Member for South Wiltshire (Viscount Folkestone) seemed to suppose. The usual course was to move to put a Bill down for Tuesday, and to intimate that from that time there would be Morning Sittings on the following Tuesdays. His noble Friend had been very careful to explain that the Government would be quite willing that not the morning alone, but even the whole of any particular Tuesday, if within the control of the Government, should be given up for the discussion of any subject of adequate importance.
EARL PERCYasked if hon. Members were to understand that the Government practically intended to take all the Tuesdays during the Session for Morning Sittings, because, as far as he was aware, that was certainly not the impression which the House had derived from the statement of the noble Marquess.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that he and other Members, on a previous Tuesday, had inferred that there would be no "count out" from the fact that the Government had placed a Notice on the Paper relating to the Committee of Public Accounts. He pointed out that if private Members were deprived of the opportunities for bringing forward their Motions, which were accorded to them by the Rules of the House, they would be under the necessity of taking such care as they could of their own interest. There was an important Motion, of which he had given Notice, that he should have been glad to bring on if he could get the opportunity for doing so on Tuesday; but now that the Government were about to take Tuesdays for Morning Sittings this was no longer possible. He was, therefore, driven to the necessity of infringing upon one of the Government days; and, accordingly, he had given Notice that lie should move the Resolution he had referred to on the next Government day
1202
—that was to say, the following Monday, on the Motion for going into Committee of Ways and Means.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, it was clear that the noble Lord had unintentionally conveyed a false impression to the House in his statement of the intentions of the Government with regard to the Morning Sittings on Tuesdays; because the statement he made had been entirely contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the whole of the remaining Tuesdays throughout the Session would be taken for Morning Sittings, whereas the noble Lord gave the House to understand that the proposal was an isolated one and referred to next Tuesday only.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I gave Notice yesterday that I should propose Morning Sittings on Tuesday next, and on succeeding Tuesdays.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was aware of that. Their complaint was, however, that the speech which the noble Lord made that evening had altered the impression which many hon. Members had, who came down for the purpose of preventing the Government getting next Tuesday and succeeding Tuesdays during the Session, their opposition having been mitigated by their belief, derived from the noble Lord's statement, that the Government only intended to take next Tuesday for the purpose of a Morning Sitting. They now found that it was the intention to take all succeeding Tuesdays.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 50: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 70.)
Main Question proposed.
SIR JOHN HAYasked for a distinct intimation from the noble Marquess as to when the Government would propose to take the remaining Tuesdays; and when they would propose to take Tuesday, the 2nd of May, because he had an important Notice down for that day respecting the imprisoned Irish "suspects."
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, if the right hon. and gallant Baronet would put down the Question on the Paper, he would answer it on Monday.
EARL PERCYsaid, he considered the reply of the noble Marquess to be so unsatisfactory that he felt bound to move the adjournment of the debate.
VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Earl Percy.)
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he would undertake that the Government would not attempt to fix a Morning Sitting for next Tuesday week until next Thursday.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Committee deferred till Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
On Motion of Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Bangor Gas Undertaking, ordered to he brought in by Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 138.]
House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Stolen Goods (64); Army (Annual) * (65).
Second Reading—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) * (48); Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Order* (51).
Third Reading—Duke of Albany (Establishment) * (58), and passed.
Royal Assent—Duke of Albany (Establishment) [45 Vict. c. 5].

STOLEN GOODS BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the first reading of a Bill to amend the law respecting the recovery of Stolen Articles, said, it was the same Bill as that which was proceeded with last Session up to a certain stage; and he proposed, when it reached the same stage, to move the re-appointment of a Select Committee to which it should be referred.
  Bill to amend the Law respecting the recovery of Stolen Articles—Presented (The LORD CHANCELLOR]; read 1a to be printed. (No. 64.)

CRIMINAL LAW—THE CONDEMNED CONVICT LAMSON.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, who had the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any existing precedent of a Foreign Government having interfered to arrest a judgment

  1083
  pronounced on a British subject by an English court of justice for a crime committed in England of which he had been found guilty by a regularly constituted jury; and, if not, whether the Secretary of State will inform the House what are the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to accede to such an interference on the part of the President of the United States in the case of the convict Lamson, said, that before he put the Question he would like to make one or two observations upon the subject. He did so with some diffidence, as it was the first time he had addressed their Lordships. The case of the convict Lamson, and the facts relating to it, were of such recent occurrence that it would be fresh in the minds of their Lordships. After a long and patient trial the prisoner was convicted on the clearest evidence of a foul and deliberate murder of a poor little boy, his own relative.
  EARL GRANVILLE, entering the House at this stage, apologized for interrupting the noble Lord, but said he had not heard his Notice given on the previous night, and suggested that the Question should be postponed until Monday, when he hoped to be in a position to give fuller information on the subject than he was prepared to do at present.
  [Question postponed.]
  House adjourned at half past Four o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.