Sitting of 4 August 1882

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES — Class II.— SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 37 to 41; Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE, Votes 1 to 23.
Resolutions [August 3] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) [Payments to Fund, &c]; Public Works Loans [Advances, &c]*; Revenue, Friendly-Societies, and National Debt [Stamp Duty, Payments, and Advances] *
Ordered—First Reading—Expiring Laws Continuance * [266]; Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections) * [265].
First Reading—Citation Amendment (Scotland)* [267].
Second Reading—Passenger Vessels Licensing (Scotland) * [76]; Cruelty to Animals [206], negatived.
Committee—Government Annuities and Assurance [190]—R.P.; Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) * [256]—R.P.
Committee — Report — Allotments [re-comm.) [227]; Intermediate Education (Ireland) [258].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Parcel Post * [254]; Reserve Forces Acts Consolidation* [124]; Militia Acts Consolidation* [123], and passed.
Third Reading—Bombay Civil Fund * [225], and passed.
Withdrawn—Augmentation of Benefices Act Amendment* [106]; Lunacy Districts (Scotland) * [224]; Contumacious Clerks* [41].

QUESTIONS.

  BRAZIL—THE PROVINCE OF MINAS GERAES—SLAVE-HOLDING BY ENGLISH SUBJECTS.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the "Rio News" of June 24th:—
  "There are yet a large number of slaves in the province of Minas Geraes, belonging to the extinct' National Brazilian Land and Mining Association,' commonly known as the 'Cocaes Company,' which are illegally held because the English law forbids slave-holding to British subjects. These slaves, however, are hired out, and their wages are regularly received and administered by the British Court of Chancery. It is altogether likely that a brief note to the British Government on this matter will secure the liberation of these unfortunate captives;"
  and, whether the Government will take such action as will put an end to the administration of funds derived from slave labour by the Court of Chancery, and secure the liberation of the slaves illegally held as property by British subjects?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had answered a previous Question on this subject, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department yesterday referred to that Question in connection with another Company. If the hon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Kelly) would look back to the answer given by the Attorney General for Ireland a few weeks ago, he would obtain the information he required.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ORANGE DEMONSTRATION AT LURGAN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the "Belfast Morning News" of the 17th ultimo, to the effect that on the 12th ultimo, an Orange aniversary, the carriage of Mr. James Macolm, J.P., High Sheriff of the County Armagh, was driven through the town of Lurgan with horses decked with orange lilies; whether Mr. Malcolm's carriage had been used on the day in question to convey the going judge of

  745
  assize to court; whether Mr. Malcolm is the same magistrate who, a week previously, let off without any punishment or fine, Joseph Mathers, an Orangeman, of Lurgan, who had been summoned by the police for having been drunk, and having "cursed the Pope," and who admitted his guilt; and, what action the Government propose to take on the conduct of Mr. Malcolm?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, with reference to the first part of this Question, I find that Mr. Malcolm has written a letter to The Belfast Morning News, which fully explains the circumstances under which his horses were decked with Orange lilies on the occasion. The Judges had left Armagh; Mr. Malcolm had gone home by train; the carriages were going home empty, under the care of the servants, and the act was entirely due to the thoughtless proceeding of his under-coachman and against the remonstrance of the head-coachman. With regard to the case of Joseph Mathers, Mr. Malcolm, as High Sheriff, could not and did not attend the Lurgan Sessions. The case mentioned was disposed of on the 4th July before six other local magistrates.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. GEOFFREY POWER.
  MR. REDMOND (for Mr. LEAMY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the case of Mr. Geoffrey Power, of Quillia, county Waterford, has been considered; and if he can now recommend his release?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mr. Geoffrey Power's case was reconsidered on the 15th ultimo. His Excellency is, at present, unable to order his release.
  MR. REDMOND: Have all the other "suspects" from the county been released.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will look that out.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE AFFRAY AT BALLINA—SUB-INSPECTOR BALL OF THE CONSTABULARY.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now give an assurance to the House that the services of Sub-Inspector Ball will be dis-
  746
  pensed with; and, whether he is in a position to state that the sufferers from the affray at Ballina will be adeqately compensated?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: Sir, shortly after the Ballina riot and inquests, Sub-Inspector Ball was transferred to Dun-fanaghy, County Donegal, where he is now serving. The Inspector General does not consider that sufficient grounds exist for dispensing with his services, and the Lord Lieutenant concurs with him in that view. The informations, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland directed the Sessional Crown Solicitor to apply for against the Sub-Inspector for manslaughter, have been refused by the magistrate, who carefully considered the whole of the evidence, and it is not the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend to direct any further criminal proceedings. The question of compensation is now under consideration, and I will state the result to the House before the end of the Session.

  THE SEED RATE (IRELAND)—SWIN-FORD UNION.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can inform the House what steps the Government intend to take with a view to relieving the Union of Swinford from the obligation to pay the full amount of the Seed Rate now due, but which, owing to the distressed condition of the small tenant farmers in that part of Mayo, the Union is at present unable to pay?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the purchasers of seed in the Swinford Union have already been afforded every indulgence in regard to repayment which the law allows. The payment of the first instalment of the Seed debt was postponed for one year, and the debt was divided into four instalments. The first of these, amounting to about £6,800, was assessed on the purchasers early this year, and of this assessment nearly £3,800 has been collected, leaving about £3,000 outstanding. To obviate the necessity of the Guardians advancing the whole of this sum of £ 3,000 from the ordinary funds of the Unions to pay the debt to the Board of Works, the Local Government Board is willing, if the Guardians desire it, and make an application to that effect, to ask the Board of Works

  747
  to give the Guardians an extension of time for the payment of the part of the instalment now due, and to allow that part of it to remain unpaid until after harvest; and I have caused the Guardians to be informed of this in case they may wish to take advantage of it.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—GUISBOROUGH SPECIAL PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has observed that Captain R. A. Massey, R.M. and Mr. R. Mitchell, R.M. sitting on Friday last, at Guisborough, county Kerry, as a court of special petty sessions, heard a case in which a number of persons were charged, under the Crime Prevention Act, with unlawful assembly and assault on the police, and sentenced, eight men to a month's imprisonment, with hard labour, and three girls of tender years, the daughters of Mr. Lawrence Buckley, described as "a well-to-do farmer and landed proprietor," to a fortnight's imprisonment; whether the scene of the alleged unlawful assembly was a place where the young people of the neighbourhood had long been in the habit of meeting for purposes of recreation; whether the residence of Mr. Buckley, the father of the Misses Buckley, is situated on the side of the road at the very spot in question; and, whether the Government will reverse the sentences in the case; and especially whether they will order the immediate release of the Misses Buckley?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I telegraphed for a report, and I wrote for it two or three days ago. I to-day got a letter from Dublin promising immediate attention. It is a subject which requires very considerable inquiry, and that attention is being paid to it in Dublin.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that those girls have been in gaol almost a week.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—ALLEGED OUTRAGE IN SLIGO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the 7th instant, one James White, of Ballinful, County Sligo, reported to the police that, while walking on his farm, he had been fired at and
  748
  wounded in the leg; whether White fixed the time of the attack upon him at four o'clock in the morning, but did not inform the police until eleven, though they were quartered in a hut a few paces from his dwelling-house; whether, on the report being made, the police arrested and lodged in Sligo Gaol two men, James Hartt and Michael Merrick, the latter of whom had been evicted from the holding in the possession of White; whether three doctors, who examined White's injured leg, concurred in the decision that the injury had been caused by the application of a red-hot iron, and not by a gunshot, as stated by White himself; whether the local resident magistrate directed the release of Hartt and Merrick, after they had been ten days in gaol; and, what action, if any, the Government have taken, or propose to take, in reference to White?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, with the exception of a few inaccuracies, the facts of this case appear to be correctly stated in this Question by the hon. Gentleman. Instead of 4, the time stated in the Question, White fixed the time of the attack upon him at 2 o'clock in the morning, and did not report the occurrence to the police until noon. The wound was examined by one doctor only, who seemed to think it was not a gunshot wound, but a burn. White swore positively in his depositions that Hartt and Merrick were the persons who fired at him. They were taken before the magistrate, and committed to Sligo Gaol for eight days on remand, but were then discharged by order of the Resident Magistrate. The case is one of considerable suspicion, and will be very fully inquired into.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the inquiry would be made with a view to the Government prosecuting White for perjury?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes.

  FIJI—THE LAND COMMISSION.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any reply has been returned to the Petition of Colonists and landowners in Fiji complaining of the Land Commission, and praying that a competent tribunal, unconnected with the Government, may be appointed; and, whether he will lay Copies of the

  749
  Petition, and of the reply thereto, upon the Table?
  Mr. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, no reply has yet been returned to the Petition, and there may be some delay, as the Governor of Fiji has not yet sent his remarks, and the Colonial Office may also possibly wait for the arrival in England of Sir Arthur Gordon. I may, however, remind my hon. Friend that the ordinance under which Mr. Williamson, an independent barrister, went out from this country to Fiji to hear these land claims distinctly provided that the decisions given by the Commission under that ordinance should be final.

  TURKEY—THE WAR INDEMNITY.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact, as stated in the press, that the Russian Government has surrendered to Turkey the instalment of the Russo-Turkish war indemnity now due, and that such instalment has been offered by the Porte as a supplementary guarantee for the repayment of the advance which is to be made to Turkey by the Ottoman Bank to provide for the expenses of the Turkish expedition to Egypt; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government has received information as to any other steps that may have been taken by Russia to promote a Turkish intervention in Egypt without fulfilling the conditions laid down by Her Majesty's Government for such intervention?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, we have heard from Constantinople that the Turkish Government has obtained a loan on the security of the Russian indemnity instalments; but we have no information that the Russian Government has surrendered an instalment, or has taken any other steps of the nature referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

  NAVY—RE-ENGAGEMENTS.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will grant a Return stating the estimated number of men whose engagements expired in 1881 and 1882, and the numbers re-engaged for further service, for ten years, and to complete pension; and also re-engagements of men who had left the service; the total and the estimated balance of men who took their discharge (in con-
  750
  tinuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 136, of Session 1881)?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, in reply, said, there was no objection to the production of the Return asked for, if the right hon. and gallant Member would move for it.

  CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1876— "IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE FLOUR "—SEIZURE AT LIVERPOOL.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether on the 29th ult. at Liverpool, 300 bags of flour, the property of P. Barrett and Co. of Carrick-shannon, were seized and detained by the officers of Customs; whether the cause alleged for such action was that the bags were branded "Irish National Land League Flour;" whether bags similarly branded have always hitherto been allowed to pass; and, whether the bags in question will be now delivered to the owners?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, on July 28, 300 sacks of wheaten flour arriving from Boston were detained by the officers of Customs at Liverpool. This action was taken under the 42nd section of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, because the brand purports to be that "of a real or fictitious manufacturer in the United Kingdom." There was nothing unusual in the action taken. As the Question has been put without Notice, I have been unable to learn whether goods similarly marked have been delivered on any former occasion. No application had, up to last night, been made for their release. Upon such application being made by the consignee, the goods would probably be released upon marks being added to show that they were of foreign manufacture; but I must not be understood to fetter the action of the Customs in any way until the circumstances are before me in a complete form.

  CYPRUS (FINANCE).
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked, Whether, on the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, the Government mean to take £90,000 as the Estimate for Cyprus; and, if so, why it has been so long delayed?
  MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, the Estimate for the Island of Cyprus had been delayed, in order to arrive at a

  751
  very exact estimate of the sum that would be required; but the difficulty experienced in ascertaining that precise amount was so great that he had now resolved that it should be delayed no longer. The Government had therefore put down £90,000 as the approximate sum required.

  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS OF IRELAND—A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will take any steps this Session for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of the Agricultural Labourers of Ireland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government, as at present advised, are not under the impression that there are any facts in respect to the agricultural labourers of Ireland which are not sufficiently in their possession already, and consequently we shall not issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of the agricultural labourers.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—A SATURDAY SITTING.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister, Whether the House would sit to-morrow (Saturday), and, if so, what business would be taken?
  MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he desired to plead with the Prime Minister as to whether, seeing that the Entail (Scotland) Bill had passed through the House of Lords, that it had already passed through two stages in this House, and that it was the only crumb of comfort that Scotch occupiers of land, whether landlords or tenants, were likely to get this Session, if it was impossible to bring it on to-night, it would be possible to give that Bill the first place tomorrow?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, if I were to do so, I am afraid some English Members would rise and complain that Scotland has had such a very large proportion of the legislation of the present year—that is to say, that out of three Bills, we intend to pass two belonging to Scotland—and perhaps the claim might not seem to be so strong. However, we shall do the best we can with respect to this Bill; but it is impossible at the present moment to come to any decision
  752
  until we see what is to be done with other Bills on the Paper to-day. These are the Turnpike Roads (South Wales) Bill, Isle of Man Officers Bill, Government Annuities and Assurance Bill, Royal Irish Constabulary Bill, Entail (Scotland) Bill, Artizans Dwellings Bill, Pensions Commutation Bill, Supreme Court of Judicature Amendment Bill, and the Lunacy Regulation Amendment Bill. These are the Bills that will stand for consideration to-morrow, unless anything should arise in the proceedings to-night to make another course desirable.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Any other Business besides these Bills?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No other Business.
  In answer to Sir Walter B. BARTTELOT,
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the Army Estimates would be taken on Monday next.

  PASSENGER ACTS — ROYAL NETHERLANDS STEAMSHIP COMPANY—ILL TREATMENT OF EMIGRANTS.
  MR. MOOREasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has received the official Report of the investigations held at New York, confirming the shocking statements made regarding the treatment of emigrants on the "Nemesis," chartered by the Royal Netherlands Steamship Company; whether this Company is the same as the "Crown Line "for which passengers were being booked from London every week; and, whether he will lay this Report upon the Table?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I have received a copy of a report of one of the Emigration Commissioners at New York which contains statements made by immigrants, passengers in the ships Nemesis and Surrey, chartered by the Company referred to in the Question, alleging that, as regards the Nemesis, there were 12 or 13 deaths from measles and diarrhœa among the children, that the water was bad, the vessel overcrowded, and that some of the officers misconducted themselves. These statements were, however, ex parte, and the master and officers were not present, and had no opportunity of being heard. Neither of these ships carried English passengers, and as they sailed under the Netherlands flag and between Rotter-

  753
  dam and New York and do not call at any British port, the Board of Trade have no control over them. The responsibility rests entirely with the Government of the United States and the Netherlands, and under these circumstances I do not feel justified in laying Papers on the Table. The "Crown Line" and the Royal Netherlands Steamship Company are identical.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—CALLING OUT THE FIRST CLASS ARMY RESERVE.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is satisfied with the results of Her Majesty's Proclamation calling out the First Class of the Army Reserves?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I am happy to be able to tell the hon. and gallant Baronet that the Returns up to the present time are quite satisfactory. Some have not yet come in; but those which have been received, I confess, surprise me, considering the very short notice the men had.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—THE ALIEN CLAUSES.
  MR. SALT (for Mr. TOTTENHAM)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will state, for the information of the House, whether any steps have been taken against individuals under the Alien Clauses of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act; and in what number of instances information has been laid that it is expedient to remove from the Realm any alien or aliens under the provisions of the said Act?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, no action has yet been taken upon those clauses.

  EGYPT—COMMUNICATION WITH ARABI PASHA.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Prime Minister, Whether means have been taken to prevent private communication between any one in this country and Arabi Pasha? He had put the Question on Tuesday, and the Prime Minister had then said that he would be prepared to answer it in a day or two. If the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to do so now, he would put it on the Paper.
  MR. GLADSTONE: That will be the better way.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—EMPLOYMENT OF A GUNBOAT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether His Excellency proposes to act upon the recommendations of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, and apply to the Treasury or Admiralty for a vessel to protect and assist the Fishing Industries off the Irish Coasts?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I will look into this matter and see whether the application is one which ought to be recommended to the favourable consideration of the Treasury. Under present arrangements, vessels such as gunboats are not infrequently lent to the Irish Government by the Admiralty for short periods during the fishery season, when they are required for the protection of the fisheries. And I imagine that if the Inspectors of Fisheries will show sufficient cause, a surveying vessel would be told off, as I think is done in Scotland, to take soundings at a time when it could be spared from general duties.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ALLEGED DISCONTENT.
  MR. CALLAN: I have to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have not had the opportunity of giving him Notice, and it is, Whether he will inform the House as to the exactness of the statement which have appeared in the public Press, or the correctness of a telegram received by many hon. Members of this House last night—namely, that a strike of police has commenced in Limerick, and is extending to an alarming extent over many other parts of Ireland; and, whether the official information the right hon. Gentleman has on the subject shows that this alarming movement is owing to the arbitrary and despotic conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: Sir, this is a sort of Question of which I should desire to have had Notice, even though it was only a few minutes; but for certain reasons, I am desirous now of saying a word about the matter without Notice. The reports in the newspapers have been extraordinarily exaggerated, and that from causes which, I think we may guess, lie outside the Police Force altogether. In saying that, I do not wish to be under-

  755
  stood as casting any imputation upon the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Callan); but telegrams have been received by a distinguished Member on the other side, by the rime Minister, and I myself received a telegram last evening, which, I believe, is word for word the same as that received by the right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition side of the House. This telegram placed the case in the most alarming colours, and when I received it I must own it filled me with considerable apprehension; but on looking to see from what quarter it came, appearances were altered, for I found that there was no name, but simply the initials, "R. I.C.," which I take evidently to mean the Royal Irish Constabulary. I may say that I have had very minute and accurate accounts of what is passing and what has passed sent to me, and especially during the last three or four days; and from these I am able to say that hitherto nothing has occurred but what is consistent with the good order and discipline of a most loyal Force, as I believe this to be. The Force is in the very best order; and there is no more loyal Force of Constabulary in the Kingdom. I am in possession of letters from all persons concerned—from the Lord Lieutenant, the Under Secretary, and the Inspector General of the Police, which make me quite satisfied that the affair is being dealt with in a manner which authorizes me to say that the authorities are worthy to command a Force of this kind.
  MR. CALLAN: I received last night from the "R. I. C," that is, the R.I.C. of Cork City—["Order, order!"] To put myself in Order, I will conclude with a Motion. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot debate this matter. Any Question he desires to put on the same subject, the hon. Member is entitled to ask.
  MR. CALLAN: I will read the telegram, and ask a Question, and, if necessary, I will conclude with a Motion. Late last night I received a telegram, and, no doubt, the reason that the sender's name is not given—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot debate this matter.
  MR. CALLAN: I will conclude with a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and give the reasons why I do so. Last night I received a telegram from Cork City, stating that the men of that city and county would meet to-day,
  756
  and were resolved to a man to demand an increase of pay and equalization of pensions, and that a Memorial to that effect was being sent in to the Government. I have also received a letter from the county of Louth, and others from Meath, fully bearing out the information which has been conveyed; and, without any disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I may tell him that the members of the R. I. C. would much rather trust me with their names and complaints than they would him. If they had sent their names to the telegraph office, these names would have been immediately placed before the Inspector General, who would reduce and punish them for complaining to a Member of this House. Therefore, they would sooner trust me. I will show the right hon. Gentleman the letters, without the names, and in private, if he desires it, with the view of verifying what I state. It is a fact that this movement is extending, and has extended; and whether it is true or false, I know not, but the main cause alleged is the arbitrary conduct of these extraordinary Resident Magistrates, who order them about throughout the country, for which they receive no compensation or extra pay of any kind. I see the Secretary of State for the Home Department is suggesting some matter to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, I am bound to say, is quite out of Order in the observation he has now made. In the Orders of the Day there is a Bill relating to the pay of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and it is out of Order to anticipate the discussion of it.
  MR. CALLAN: I do not. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot proceed.
  MR. CALLAN: You order—["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already warned the hon. Member that he cannot proceed with the matter.
  MR. CALLAN: I do not intend to proceed; I only wish to refer to the arbitrary conduct of the magistrates —["Order, order!"]
  Mr. SPEAKERcalled upon Mr. O'SHEA.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND)—PROSELYTISM IN A WORKHOUSE SCHOOL.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether

  757
  he has caused inquiry to be made into the statement of a Member of the House to the effect that four children have recently been flogged in a school within jurisdiction of the Board for refusing to conform to a religion different from that professed by their parents?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, as no clue has been afforded as to the name of the school in question, and as there are several hundred such schools in the Kingdom, I could scarcely be expected to answer the inquiry. When the hon. Member mentions the name of the school, I will ascertain the truth of the matter.
  Mr. MOOREsaid, that he would furnish the Local Government Board with the fullest information necessary for making inquiries.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—ALLEGED AGRARIAN MURDER IN WEST CLARE.
  MR. O'SHEA: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there is any truth in the report appearing in a morning paper of a murder stated to have been committed in Clare?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have a telegram from Mr. Clifford Lloyd, in which he states that, as regards the alleged murder between Kilrush and Kilkee, in West Clare, that a man was found dead on the road at the locality mentioned; but there was no suspicion of foul play in the case.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS) — OCCUPATION OF SUEZ.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he can confirm the statement that Suez has been occupied by British troops?
  MR. CHILDERS (for Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN), in reply, said, that Suez had been occupied by a few marines of the flagship.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

  PASSENGER ACTS—EMIGRANT SHIPS.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. MOORE, in rising to draw attention to the state of the law regarding emigrants; and to move—"That in the opinion of this House, the Passenger Acts require revision and reform," said, he felt bound to congratulate the Board of Trade on the fact that, owing to the labours of the Select Committee of last year, considerable improvements had been made since last year, when many complaints had been made as to defective passenger accommodation. Very desirable changes had been made in this respect by most of the great Steamship Companies whose boats ran between Liverpool and New York; and one line in particular— the White Star—had made great strides in the right direction, and was being followed in the way of improvement by the National and Allan Lines; but these improvements did not, of course, alter the very unsatisfactory state of the law, Much had also been done for Irish emigrants by Miss O'Brien, who had opened a home for them at Queenstown, and had inspected many of the vessels. But neither the efforts of the benevolent, nor the improved condition of emigration introduced by the Steamship Companies, would be wholly effectual as long as the law remained unaltered. In spite of all that had been done, as many as 200 complaints of overcrowding had been received within the last two years in the ease of vessels arriving at New York; and he had the authority of Miss O'Brien, who had taken great interest in this matter, for saying that, in these cases, no woman could keep her character above reproach in one of these crowded voyages. Beyond that, the state of things that occasionally prevailed on board emigrant ships might be gathered from the report issued officially from Castle Garden, New York, of what had occurred on one of the best steamers between that port and Liverpool. The New York officials said, with reference to this vessel, that they had carefully inquired into the facts of the case, and found that the bread supplied to the emigrants was sour, that the potatoes were not good, that the sleeping accommodation was promiscuous, and that the conduct of the chief steward was reprehensible. In fact, the circumstances made public in this case fully

    759
    justified the complaints made last year. The laws of the United States respecting emigrants had recently been altered; but those of this country were still very inadequate, and he would urge upon the Government to take steps to effect concerted action on the part, not only of England and America, but of other European countries. By some strange anomaly the Passenger Acts did not apply to "short" ships—that was, to vessels carrying fewer than 50passengers. Besides short ships, homeward-bound vessels, and vessels plying to European ports, were also exempt from the provisions of the Passenger Act. He did not see why the same protection was not necessary in the case of a ship coming home; and then, if complaints were made, we were ourselves in a position to inquire into and remedy the grievance. In reference to the point, he had received a letter, detailing the shameful treatment by the chief steward of a poor girl on board one of these homeward-bound vessels, and which showed the necessity for extending to passengers coming home the same protection which was given to passengers going out. With regard to the third portion of his case, or vessels plying between European ports, he last year called attention to the very bad state of the Scandinavian traffic. He did not wish to lean very heavily upon the owners, because he believed they would be willing to set things right; but he received his information from such high authority that he felt bound to bring the subject forward. The President of the Board of Trade sent out an officer to inquire into the matter, and he reported that the accommodation was very bad, in fact, of the worst kind possible, and that there was no attempt at a division of the sexes, nor even of individual berths. That was last autumn, the slack time of the year, and the officer recommended that he should be sent out again. That was done, and it was found that a considerable improvement had been made. The vessels of one or two Companies were in a very satisfactory state. He had heard complaints of the boats plying between Hamburg and Loudon, in which passengers spent two days and two nights on deck crowded together like swine. Over the emigration carried on by foreign Lines, the President of the Board of Trade would, no doubt, say he had no jurisdiction. The
    760
    fact, however, was that the agents disguised from the emigrants that they were to be transhipped; but when the President of the Board of Trade asked any questions, they said they only booked to European ports, and that the Passenger Acts did not apply. But he held in his hand a ticket which, professed that the passengers should be carried direct from London to New York. In these steamers there was no adequate provision for the decency, comfort, or health of the emigrants; and there was no reason why British emigrants should be carried by a circuitous route to America. He complained especially in this connection of the Compagnie Transatlantique de Havre, and of the two Antwerp Companies— the Red Star and the White Cross. They had in the House already some details in connection with the Royal Netherlands Steamship Company in the case of the Nemesis, a vessel which had carried several hundred, emigrants to New York from Amsterdam. From the report of the emigration agent at New York, it was shown that the passengers were most unhappy during the whole journey, which lasted 16 days. Ten children died on the voyage, 11 had died since, and a number of the adult passengers had to be taken to the emigration hospital on landing. It was further said that a ship's load had never before been received in such a wretched condition; that the water furnished to the passengers was bad, and that the officers and employés of the ship were careless of the comfort and welfare of the emigrants. Besides all this, it was also stated by the agent that directly it became known to the officers of the vessel that an inquiry was to be instituted, the cable was slipped in the night, and the vessel disappeared. He maintained that this country, in the interests of its own traffic, should exercise the strictest supervision over the emigration agents here, who, escaping all the regulations in force applying to agents shipping direct from British ports, represented to the Board of Trade that they wore booking passengers to European ports only, when they were really arranging for their passage to America. The present powers of the Board ought, he contended, to be extended, so that passengers thus treated might have the protection of the law. Then, better accommodation ought to be provided for

    761
    foreign emigrants passing through this country, for the total disregard of all the necessary arrangements as to their comfort on landing was most shameful and deserving of the utmost condemnation. These remarks especially applied to the case of those foreign emigrants who shipped from England and Scotland, through the three great channels of emigration, the ports of Leith, Hull, and London. In the 10 months ending last February, the number of foreign emigrants entering Hull en route to America was 58,000. As regarded the accommodation of these people on shore it was reported to be so unsatisfactory that Mr. Gray was sent down by the Board of Trade to inquire into it, and he discovered that many of the emigrants were entirely without sleeping accommodation, and were found lying about on their boxes in the open air, without any roof covering over them, and the accommodation in other respects was most deplorable and required alteration. In London, the position of foreign emigrants was still more pitiable, for they became the prey of the worst description of lodging-house keepers, who, finding it to their interest to detain their lodgers as long as they possibly could, frequently allowed the vessels to sail without them, and he knew of young girls being detained in this way until their ruin was completed. But a more iniquitous practice was this—the lodging-house keepers, who received from the shipping Company 1s. 6d. to 1s. 9d. per day for each emigrant, were in the habit of subcontracting for the maintenance of the emigrants in small starvation lodging-houses, at a rate at which it was impossible that they could be fed. He knew of one case in which an emigrant was detained absolutely five weeks in town for a ship. The police had no power to interfere; and, therefore, it was imperative that the Government should take some action in the matter. Either these establishments should be brought under the immediate control of the police, or, better still, Government should provide a general depôt at some spot down the River, for the reception of emigrants while waiting to be transhipped to the Atlantic Line vessels. The Board of Trade, too, should take care that these ships carried steady and experienced surgeons, and not mere boys fresh from the medical school. Their position should
    762
    be improved, and they should be made more independent. At present, their pay was small; but, no doubt, that was because of their youth, and the fact that they came to the ship generally straight from school without experience. He thought the time was come when, for reasons of humanity, the large streams of emigrants coming from abroad should be saved from lodging-houses and from infectious diseases. There should also be established an efficient system of inspection. The character of the ships should be improved, and depots established for the reception of the emigrants during their stay in London and other ports. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the Passenger Acts require revision and reform,"—(Mr. Moore,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore), far from needing an apology, had done good service in calling attention to this subject, in which, as was well known, he had taken great interest. He rejoiced to hear his hon. Friend say at the outset that he recognized the very great importance of the new arrangements that had been made for the convenience, comfort, and health of emigrant passengers on the great Atlantic Lines. The hon. Member paid a special compliment to one Line; but his (Mr. Chamberlain's) own inspection led him to believe that the same favourable opinion might be expressed in regard to the great majority of Lines going from England to the United States. As far as he (Mr. Chamberlain) knew, there was now only one Line which had hitherto failed to comply with the recommendations that were made some time ago by the Board of Trade, and that Line, he hoped, would not be long in following the example of the others. His hon. Friend had recognized, and he (Mr. Chamberlain), also, was quite prepared to recognize, the services of Miss O'Brien in this matter; although, at the same time, it was only fair to say that

    763
    she commenced her agitation in connection with the subject by bringing very serious charges indeed against one of the great American Lines—charges which further examination showed were, at all events, immensely exaggerated, and which she subsequently withdrew in a most honourable way. There seemed to be a little confusion in the mind of his hon. Friend as to what a revision of the Passenger Acts might be expected to do. For instance, he had called attention to one or two painful cases happening on board British or foreign ships, in which women had been subjected to outrage, and passengers insulted by officers of the ships; but he (Mr. Chamberlain) would point out to the hon. Member that the law was already amply sufficient to deal with these cases. No alteration of the law would enable them to insure that every officer of every ship should be civil and obliging; but if a man, under any circumstances, committed a ruffianly act, ample provision was made for his punishment by a Court of Justice if sufficient evidence was forthcoming. The hon. Member went on to say that the powers of the Board of Trade were limited in certain cases, and that the regulations which applied to emigrant ships should apply also to ships plying between European ports and ships homeward bound. He (Mr. Chamberlain) imagined that the reason why these cases were excluded was, that no considerable number of emigrants were carried under conditions that justified the stringent provisions of the Passengers Act. The Scandinavian trade was alluded to by his hon. Friend as an illustration of the necessity of applying the rules. That trade had already engaged the attention of the Board of Trade, and an officer of the Board of Trade had gone to Hull to inquire into it. At Hull it was found that there was some reason to be dissatified with the then existing provision. The officer thought it might be improved; but he pointed out it would be extremely undesirable, in the interest of the emigrants themselves, that such stringent provision should be made as would largely increase the fares which were now charged. Subject to that circumstance, however, the officer made certain recommendations, which were forwarded to the owners of the Lines; and he (Mr. Chamberlain) had received the most ample assurances of their intentions to
    764
    do, not only what was recommended, but anything else which, from time to time, he might point out to secure the comfort and health to the whole subject. His experience was, that much could be done by friendly representations to the owners of Lines, without compulsory legislation. There was always the objection to compulsory legislation, that they must lay down hard-and-fast lines to go upon in all cases, a course of proceeding which would sometimes interfere unwarrantably with private enterprize. So long as he could obtain fair and reasonable attention from the parties concerned by their voluntary action, he greatly preferred it to asking the House to attempt to control the whole of a very complicated trade by regulations which took the form of an Act of Parliament. As to the treatment of emigrants when they got to Hull, that was, no doubt, in an unsatisfactory condition; but it was the fact that cases of detention occurred very seldom during a season. The only way to remedy the cases of hardship, which occurred three or four times last year, was to erect a depôor large lodging-house for the reception of emigrants when it was impossible to send them on; and the matter had been under the consideration both of the steamship owners and of the local authorities of Hull, but no definite conclusion had been come to; one question being whether it was worth while to make such a provision, because the occasions when such buildings would be useful were so infrequent. With regard to the state of things on board foreign Lines which traded between foreign ports and America, which did not call at all in England, but for which English subjects were sometimes booked, these foreign Companies had, no doubt, agents in this country who were amenable to English law, and if his hon. Friend could lay before him any evidence of fraud, he had no doubt he would be able to bring them to a reckoning. But so far as he had been able hitherto to follow the complaints of his hon. Friend, he had no such case of fraud brought to his attention. On the contrary, the tickets he had seen distinctly stated that the voyage was only to Rotterdam, and thence in the steamers of the Transatlantic Line to New York. Under those circumstances it would be quite impossible to accuse the parties of

    765
    any improper conduct. It was necessary ' to scrutinize complaints, because they sometimes came from competitors; and although that did not make them less worthy of attention, yet it suggested caution, without which we might embarrass our relations with foreign Governments. The law was already sufficient to meet cases of fraud. The case of the Nemesis had been alluded to, and there might be ground against the action of these foreign Lines; but this country had not control over them, nor could any law that they might pass give them much control. They must trust to the fact that circumstances such as those which seemed to have been brought out by the inquiry at New York were published far and wide, and that they would prove prejudicial in regard to the Line about which such statements were made, for passengers would always select that which bore the best reputation. His hon. Friend, as he understood him, proposed that the Government should erect depots, with the necessary arrangements belonging thereto, at London, Hull, Leith, and probably other places, where emigrants could be received. It seemed to him (Mr. Chamberlain), however, that if the Government were going to take such a step, it would be going very far in the direction of grandmotherly legislation, and it would be very difficult to say when the functions of the State would stop in such matters. He quite admitted that the Passengers Act required revision and reform, for it was passed 30 years ago, and it required revision in many respects to which his hon. Friend had not alluded. There was also not a single branch of the Board of Trade in regard to which he did not see that legislation of a practical and useful character might be proposed if they had only time for the business; but until some change was effected for restoring to the House control over its Business, it would be absurd to give any promise to his hon. Friend that he would bring in a Bill to deal with the subject that had just been brought under the notice of the House.
    MR. MOOREsaid, that, after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he was ready to withdraw the Resolution. ["No, no!"]
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  SCOTLAND—CROFTERS IN THE ISLAND OF SKYE—A ROYAL COMMISSION.

    ORSERVATIONS.
    MR. MACFARLANE, who had the following Notice of Motion on the Paper:—
    To move, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of the Crofters in the Island of Skye, the Western Islands of Scotland generally, and the Islands constituting the Orkney and Shetland groups, and specially to report upon the relations of landlord and tenant in those localities, and as to the causes which have led to the recent disturbances in Skye,"
    said, that being precluded by the Forms of the House from bringing it forward, he would content himself with appealing to the Prime Minister and the Government to grant its substance. He would point out that 10 years ago a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the "truck system" in the Shetland Isles. The Commissioner reported—
    "I have not thought myself at liberty to enter upon the Land Question, but the 'truck system' is due in no small degree to the habits of dependence which the faulty relationship of landlord and tenant fosters. Hitherto it has been said that legislation should not be local or exceptional. It is to be hoped that in any reform of the Land Laws of Scotland the case of Shetland will not be forgotten."
    This Commissioner attributed the poverty and wretchedness of the people in Shetland to the land system. He (Mr. Macfarlane) had no doubt that what was true of Shetland was true of all the other parts of Scotland, and especially the Islands of Scotland. It was only a few months since that there was a very serious disturbance—serious for Scotland, which was a very peaceful country —in the Island of Skye. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate knew very well that, though the crofters were technically in the wrong, and though they had broken the law, yet that they were so far in the right that the punishment inflicted was ridiculously nominal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knew also that there was a feeling in the country that if any severe punishment had been inflicted upon them, gross injustice would have been done. Since that time there had been a comparative lull in Skye; but the question had been taken up in the country, and were it not for wearying the House, he (Mr. Macfarlane) could

    767
    read letters which he had received from clergymen and others, as to the serious future consequences of neglecting this question. These writers uniformly and universally testified that inquiry was needed, and prayed that the Government would grant it. He had in his hand two resolutions to the same effect from a meeting held in Glasgow. The second was—
    "That this meeting insists not only on the desirability, but oh the urgent necessity for full Parliamentary inquiry into the facts of the case as regards the Highland crofters, with a view to legislation as soon as possible."
    That motion was carried unanimously. It was moved by a clergyman, and seconded by Mr. M'Donald. Another motion, which he would not trouble the House by reading, also moved by a clergyman, represented the necessity of being fully alive to the importance of meeting the case of these poor people. This was not an ordinary agitation. The clergymen in that part of the country did not take part in an agitation unless they saw a very serious necessity for it. He believed that this was a question between men and grouse. He believed it to be a fair calculation to say, as had been said, that 10 brace of grouse were as good to a landlord as a crofter as a mere money speculation. A great many years ago, Sir Walter Scott wrote upon the depopulation of the Islands and Highlands then going on, and remarked that—
    "If the hour of need come, and it may not be far distant, the people may be summoned for the purposes of defence from these regions, but the summons will remain unanswered."
    That prediction had been fulfilled, and he (Mr. Macfarlane) did not suppose there was really, at that moment, one-tenth of the small crofter population in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland which existed in the time Sir Walter Scott wrote about the subject. The Prime Minister, no doubt, had to deal with many difficulties of the kind, and thoroughly well knew that, in dealing with the Irish Land Question, he had been seriously hampered by the landowners of England and Scotland; but, notwithstanding that, he (Mr. Macfarlane) would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this matter in hand. Was the Land Question in Scotland to be settled; or were they to tell the people of the Highlands and Islands of Scot-
    768
    land that so long as they remained quiet, or so long as they did not agitate, so long as they did not commit crime and outrage, they would obtain no redress? That was the inevitable conclusion to which the people would come if nothing was done. They were a peaceful and long-suffering, yet a gallant people. If they were not, where would the Government have got the gallant soldiers who filled the ranks of the Army; and where would they go for more when they were all driven away? It was impossible at the present time to carry out the atrocities which took place in Sutherland-shire and other places 60 or 70 years ago; but a gradual depopulation was now going on, which was none the less certain. The people were being as surely driven out, by milder means, no doubt, but, nevertheless, as surely as they were driven out of Sutherlandshire by violent measures 60 years ago, when their houses were torn down over their heads. He was not making sweeping charges against the landlords in Scotland. He did not believe they were any worse than other men would have been in the same position; but they were irresponsible men in these remote localities, for there was no public opinion to bring to bear upon them. He again appealed to the Prime Minister to grant this Commission, because if it was found that there was really no grievance the agitation would subside; whereas if they reported, as he had no doubt they would, that every crofter in Scotland was at the mercy of his landlord, and might be sent out of his holding without compensation of any description, upon 40 days' notice, then he thought the country would come to the conclusion that while Parliament had been working for the Irish tenants, who could not be sent out under 12 months' notice, that there was a much harder case in the Islands of Scotland undealt with.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, that when this Notice first appearedon the Paper, he had put down an Amendment to the effect that the Highlands, as well as the Islands, should be included in the proposed Inquiry. It was quite impossible, at this period of the Session, when hon. Members were suffering not only from the labours of the Session, but also under the burden of work yet to be done, and when so much necessary Public Business remained to be dis-

    769
    posed of, to discuss a question of this kind practically and thoroughly when the great majority of Scotch Members had already gone away; and he could not but fear that some injury might be done to the question by its being brought forward at a time when it could not be adequately discussed. He was afraid that many, seeing an important question of this kind disposed of in a short and hurried discussion, might be led to underrate its importance. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for County Carlow in his remarks about the great importance which this question had in the eyes of Scotchmen. He knew how unreasonable it was to ask the Prime Minister to undertake more work than that which was at present on his shoulders; but, at the same time, he believed that this was a question which could not be long postponed—which would every year become more pressing, and it would be absolutely necessary to consider it before long. He had seen the case of the crofters, in pamphlets and newspapers and public meetings, mixed up with, and confounded with, that of the ordinary farmers in Scotland; and the writers and speakers urged that it would be dealt with on the same lines of legislation. Now, he thought that a broad distinction should be drawn between the case of the two classes of persons. The ordinary farmer in Scotland was a man who carried on farming as a commercial transaction. He might go from one part of the country to another and lease a farm with his eyes open, and enter into contracts deliberately which he should be compelled to carry out. He, for one, would not be disposed to interfere by legislation in the case of the ordinary farmer, except in so far as the public interests demanded interference in order to develop fully the producing powers of the land. The crofters were, he held, in a very different position from the farmer. He was a man born on the land; he was, so to speak, a son of the soil. His family had been on it for generations, and in some cases even for centuries, and everything in the domestic history of the family was connected with the plot of land on which he dwelt. To that man that plot of land was dear in a sense which was unknown to the farmer. He ventured to say that the Scotch crofter had a love for his holding as great, if
    770
    not greater, than any Irish farmer had for his. The crofters had been exposed in past times to hardships and injuries as great as any that had happened to the Irish tenant. He believed that most of the proprietors were good and honourable men, and dealt with the crofters in a kind spirit; but there were exceptions, and it must not be forgotten that although the landlords in most cases had not oppressed the crofters, still these crofters held their crofts entirely at the mercy of the landlord, and were wholly in his power. Although living on land which his family might have occupied for generations, the crofter had no security even for a single year, and he might be summarily ejected whenever the landlord so willed, although everything on the land had been done by the crofter. It was in very few cases that the landlords made any improvements for the tenants, and in those parts of the country which he knew best they did nothing for them whatever—all improvements were done by the crofters themselves. While desirous not to stand in the way of the House to get into the Business of Supply, which was so much in arrears, he should have been sorry to allow a question of this kind to pass without one or two Scotch Members taking part in the discussion.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, it appeared to him that all the considerations which had conspired to bring the ease of the Irish tenant farmer before that House applied to a much greater extent in favour of the consideration of the case of the Highland crofter. It had been said that, according to the old custom of landholding in Ireland, the cultivator of the soil had a proprietary right in it. If that had been the case in Ireland, it had been also the case in Scotland, and much more recently, for, up to 1745, it was the case in respect to the landed property of all the Highland tribes. It was only after the Highland rising in 1745, when the tribal jurisdiction was swept away, that the Highland Chief was transformed into a position analogous to that of the English landlord, and given the same rights over the soil. The crofters did not suffer from the change that took place for a long time. They were still living with their Chiefs and amongst their friends and were protected. But, as time went on, other customs sprang up. With entails and

    771
    settlements the Chiefs or lairds found themselves pressed for money, and, accordingly, were driven to raise the rents which had been charged to the crofters in respect of their holdings; and in many cases, he believed, to inaugurate that sub-division of the crofts which had led to so much poverty and to many other evils. They found it was to their interest, if they obtained their rent, to encourage that sub - division which subsequent generations had found so burdensome; and for that purpose they resorted to evictions to clear the land for the new tenants. These evictions, at the commencement of the present century, were carried on to a fearful extent in Scotland, in many of the glens of that country. The ancestors of the people who held these farms, and who were thus turned out, had been for centuries on the land; their occupation, in most instances, dating back to the old tribal tenure. In England such customary holding as that had given place to copyhold tenure; but in Scotland customary tenure went for nothing. In that country there was a system of registering titles, and no continuity of holding unsupported by a title could avail. The landlord, by his title, was put in a position to say—"This is my absolute property. You have no recognizable property in this whatever. I can do what I like with it." Of that right they availed themselves, and it was but natural that they should. Not only did they find that this prescriptive right of land tenure had been sacrificed to innovating legislation of a far more recent date than any affecting the Irish tenantry, but other rights had been sacrificed in the same way. The crofters had enjoyed rights of pasturage, of turf cutting, and other valuable rights, which had been constantly encroached upon and sacrificed. If hon. Members looked into the land disputes which had occurred in the Highlands and Islands, they would find that they could be traced in every case to some proposal to take away rights of pasture, or otherwise an endeavour to take away the right to common, or to cut turf, or that some other proposal of the kind was at the bottom of the quarrel. These quarrels, when they occurred, did not speak very well for the condition of the Highland population. In fact, in that part of Scotland a state of things would be found which
    772
    would not be tolerated amongst the English tenantry. In some places the crofters were still compelled by the landlord to send their corn to be ground at a particular mill, whether they liked it or not; or, if they did not send it, were compelled to pay a certain amount for every bushel ground elsewhere. Such a provision might have been necessary in the olden time, but could not possibly be said to be so now. He was aware that the custom had been abolished in the greater part of Scotland; but, in many parts, it still remained. It had been brought under his notice as still existing in Skye. It was absolutely absurd that such a custom should exist, and it was no wonder that the crofters should rise against their landlords for having east such an imposition upon them. Another thing that had not been touched upon, and which greatly affected the crofters, was the landlord absenteeism prevailing. By far the best managed and contented estates in Scotland were those of landlords who lived amongst their tenants, and were able to see what was going on. But, in the Highlands, the complaint was that the landlords did not live amongst the people, but left them entirely to the mercy of factors, who, though, no doubt, excellent men, being mostly lawyers, regarded the estates and the tenantry from the hard, dry, absolute property point of view of Scotch law. They thought they had an absolute right to do what they liked, and they carried their point to a legitimate, but rather far-fetched, conclusion. In many cases they monopolized all the offices of the district. The other day a factor in the witness-box told the jury that he was himself a crofter-—that was to say, a rival crofter. In many places the factor was a fish-dealer, and compelled the crofters, who were also fishermen, to sell their fish to him at his own price. In other places, the factor was a cattle-dealer, and compelled the crofters to bring their cattle and sheep to him. In other places still, he was a contractor, and compelled them to labour in part-payment of their rent, and if they failed to present themselves fined them a much higher amount than they would have got if they had worked. So far, in fact, did this interference go, that a Highland laird had told him of one estate where the crofters were not even allowed to marry without the consent of the factor. In many cases, too, the factor

    773
    monopolized all the public offices of the district. He might be found as chairman of the school board. In a case that recently came before the Scotch public, a factor was found to have sent out a warning to the crofters, that if their children did not attend so regularly as to earn the grant, they must be prepared, next rent day, to pay 10 s. or 12 s. for every child that had failed to earn the school grants. Sometimes the factor was Procurator Fiscal, and he (Dr. Cameron) thought it improper that a man who had to act as public prosecutor should also act as factor. Those officers ought in no way to be connected with the management of the land. A Question was asked of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh), a short time ago, regarding a couple of old men who had been evicted, because their sons had done something to annoy the Fiscal in his judicial or executive capacity. These factors were intrusted, in their capacity of Fiscals, with directing prosecutions against poachers; and, in their capacity as factors, they did not like the game on the estates in their charge to be disturbed. The consequence was that in some cases they laid down the rule that if any dog was kept by the crofters in certain districts they would be dispossessed. Anyone who knew the state of things in the Highlands now, and could contrast it with the state of things in the not very olden time, must be convinced of the necessity of something being done. He (Dr. Cameron) did not say that anything should be done on mere hearsay; but, at all events, the step recommended by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Macfarlane) should be taken, a good case being made out for inquiry. Anyone who wanted information on this subject he could refer to a book published the other day by a very distinguished man of science—Mr. Wallace. Though they might not agree with his conclusions, they must recognize that, having been engaged in scientific pursuits, this had formed in him a habit of accurate observation of facts. No one who wished to understand the position of the Highland crofters could do better than refer to the work of Mr. Wallace. From that book, he (Dr. Cameron) would quote one sentence, not by Mr. Wallace himself, but from the pen of
    774
    Dr. Norman Macleod, who spoke of the state of things formerly existing in the Islands. Dr. Norman Macleod said—
    "As a proof of the sterling qualities of these Highlanders, I may mention that since the beginning of the last war of the French Revolution, the Island of Skye alone has sent forth from her wild shores 21 lieutenant and major generals, 48 lieutenant colonels, 600 commissioned officers, 10,000 soldiers, 4 Governors of Colonies, 1 Governor General of India, 1 Chief Baron of England, and 1 Judge of the Supreme Court of Scotland. Contrast that with a state of things in which the last of the Highlanders are scattered over the world—Canada, New Zealand, and all through the Colonies, while the more dependent of them are in the towns, where, owing to the want of knowledge of English, they are in a degraded position, living in an atmosphere to which they are totally unfitted."
    They were a law-abiding people; but he did not think it was to be wondered at that strong symptoms of restlessness were observable amongst them. Their discontent was threatening to break out, and in the interests of true statesmanship—in the interests of a noble people —a people whom it was very much, indeed, to the welfare of the nation to keep at home, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would do well to grant the request which had been placed before him in such moderate terms by the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Carlow.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, it might possibly be expected that he, as a landowner in those districts, the fate of which was so much bemoaned by hon. Members, should say a few words. Indeed, as one who knew the districts occupied by the crofters well, he thought himself entitled to do so; and he would say this—that he did not rise for the purpose of making an appeal to the Prime Minister to forego an inquiry as regards the condition of the Highland crofter; but he thought it was a great misfortune that this subject should be brought before the House by those who really knew nothing whatever of the subject on which they spoke. [Laughter.] He repeated that it was a misfortune that those who had addressed the House upon the subject should have no practical acquaintance with the condition of the Highlands, or Islands, nor any knowledge of their circumstances, their feelings, or aspirations. It had been said, and it might be so, that it was suitable that an Irish Representative should bring the subject before the House, because it had been put forward

    775
    —and he believed it was correct—that there was an endeavour being made at the present time, by some organizations in Scotland, to diffuse Irish feeling and sentiment throughout the population of the Highlands. He (Mr. Ramsay) hoped, however, if any sentiment of discontent ever prevailed there, it might be based on some other circumstances than any which had affected the Irish population. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject (Mr. Macfarlane) had spoken as if there were great cause to bewail the condition and the decrease of the population of the insular parts of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman in that respect had shown that he knew nothing whatever about the state of Scotland; and he (Mr. Ramsay) could adduce no better evidence of that than the fact that the insular parishes of Scotland were the only rural parishes in the United Kingdom which had increased in population since the beginning of the present century. The population of the Hebrides was little more than 40,000 in 1745; and at the beginning of this century the population of Lewis, where there were a number of small tenants, was only 10,000, but it was now 25,000; and he ventured to say they would not find an exclusively rural district in Great Britain in which the same increase in population had occurred in the same period. If that were not an answer to much of the wail for the decrease of the population, he did not know what was. He was sorry he had not the details of the question at hand with him, for, like the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie), he did not anticipate this discussion. He thought the time of the House was too valuable to be wasted by hon. Members who knew nothing of the subject on which they addressed the House. But, seeing that they had thought fit to make their remarks, he thought it right to say that, if the subject were gone into, it would be found that there was no foundation for the charges as to the decrease of population of the Highlands, nor for any other of the statements which had been made about the circumstances of the crofters. If the Prime Minister saw fit to grant an inquiry, these circumstances would be fully investigated by the Gentlemen appointed for the purpose; but the details of the Census did not require a Commission, and any hon. Gentleman
    776
    who chose to make the examination of the figures would find what he had just stated as to the increase of the population. By doing that, hon. Members who took an interest in the question would find that these insular parishes, and many of the Highland parishes, were the only rural districts in which there were no manufactures which had increased in population in the present century. That might be disputed; but he had in his possession a detailed statement of the population of the whole of the insular parishes in Scotland; he would be glad to furnish hon. Members who took an interest in the subject with a copy. What he also wished to say was, that when he said he did not deprecate an inquiry into the condition of the people, he believed he was only saying what would be responded to in the same spirit by any of the large landed proprietors in the West of Scotland. They were none of them afraid of investigation. Reference had been made by some hon. Gentlemen to tribal holdings; but it was a singular thing that hon. Members must go back into vague periods of history, when they had no records of the tribal condition of the people, in order to verify statements of that kind. Not long ago he had an opportunity of reading the most recent work on the condition of the Highlands that he had seen—that of the Royal Historiographer for Scotland—in which an account was given of the Celtic people of Scotland. He felt quite sure that hon. Members who had addressed the House had a kindly feeling towards the population, and that they would shrink from placing people in the same condition as they had been in as described in that book. He (Mr. Ramsay) had in his possession the ancient Charter for one of the most valuable Islands in the Hebrides. [Cries of"Name!"] He had no doubt that his hon. Friends knew the Island he was referring to. That Charter showed that the condition of the people at that time was nothing to what it was at the present day. Very much was said of the crofters having lived on the same holdings for generations. That had been the case in some instances, no doubt; but he thought crofters, like farmers, were accustomed to change their croft whenever they were enabled by their circumstances to take a better or more extensive one, In proof of that, he

    777
    might state that two of the largest farmers on his own property were the sons of small crofters, and they now occupied farms such as their fathers never could have tilled, and would have been unable to stock, if they had had the ability. In the district in which he lived there had been a very great decrease in the population during the past 40 years. But that was not owing to enforced evictions, but because the proprietor, previous to his occupation of the land, directed his attention to the education of the people; and though he took a pride in having the greatest number of human beings possible on the land, the number had decreased to the extent of 50 per cent during the last 40 years; and that was brought about by the fact that the people, being educated, would not live in the circumstances in which their fathers had lived before them— their instruction in the English language having enabled them to speak, read, and write that language with ease and facility had had the effect of bringing about depopulation more effectually than any enforced measures that ever could be brought to bear. He considered he was placed at a disadvantage in making these remarks; and he thought, also, that the subject was at great disadvantage in being discussed when they had not the opportunity of having the whole circumstances brought fairly before the House. He would regret if any remark of his should tend to make the Prime Minister hesitate if he had previously entertained the idea to grant the Commission which the hon. Member asked for. He should wait the deliberation of any sensible men as to the circumstances of the crofters with the greatest satisfaction.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he hoped that if the Prime Minister saw that the unanimous feeling of Scotch Members was that this inquiry should be made, he would grant the Commission, so that the charges made by those who agreed with the hon. Member who had brought the matter before the House (Mr. Macfarlane) might be verified or shown to be groundless. The hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) was, no doubt, a very good landlord; but he seemed to think that the territorial magnates were the only people who knew anything about this matter, and he reproached the hon.
    778
    Member who proposed this inquiry with being an Irish Member. It was true that the hon. Member had the misfortune to be an Irish Member; but the speech he had made had a good Scottish sound in it, and it proved that he was a sound Scotchman, and had not deserted his native country, but came forward to speak upon this subject, together with other hon. Members who had a knowledge of the subject, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Falkirk Burghs said to the contrary. That hon. Gentleman, who had defended the landlords, had dealt very much in generalities. There was no doubt that the education of the people in the hon. Member's district was a legitimate cause of decreased population, and it was that education which had enabled Scotchmen to better themselves all over the world; but it was a matter of history that there had been great depopulation in Scotland. It was also probably true that many of the insular and seaboard parishes had increased in population; but one of the great causes of that was, that the people had been expelled from the interior of the country, which had been turned into deer forests and sheep farms, and grouse moors. [Mr. RAMSAY: Nonsense.] He ventured to say it was not nonsense. In Sutherlandshire he had seen the little green spots in the moors and deer forests from which the crofters had been removed. Let his hon. Friend go to Sutherlandshire and other parts in the Highlands, where he would see the green spots in the middle of the moors and deer forests, from which the crofters had been evicted, and taken down to the seaboard, where they were told they could make a better living by fishing. Thank God, Scotchmen were able to fish better than Irishmen, and they could thus help to eke out a living which they were no longer allowed to get out of the land, although the kelp had failed them; and although Scotch landlords were not worse than Irish landlords—probably not so bad—they had much greater temptations to evict the crofters, who were likely to interfere with deer and grouse, because they could turn their land into sheep farms, deer forests, and grouse moors; and the people of Scotland—except in some particular instances—had not had the protection of customary tenure, such as the copyhold tenure in England. He hoped the Prime

    779
    Minister would consider this case. He had devoted Session after Session, and all his great powers, to doing justice to the Irish tenants. The people in the Highlands and Islands were in every respect in the same condition, except that they were not so numerous, or so capable of making themselves so troublesome. In one respect he believed they had a much stronger case than the Irish tenants, because the Irish tenants were, no doubt, fairly conquered; but the crofters of Scotland never were. They had been defrauded of their rights—not by soldiers, but by lawyers. Under these circumstances, he hoped the inquiry would be conceded, and he was sure they would have the sympathy of the Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I hope—indeed, I am sure, Sir, it will not be supposed that there is any want of sympathy on the part of the Government with the landholders of Scotland, whether they be crofters, or holding under a different tenure, or any want of interest in their condition. But it appears to the Government that there has neither been in the statement made in the House to-day, nor from the information of which they are otherwise in possession, any sufficient ground for taking such a serious and unusual step as to appoint a Royal Commission such as that which is now asked for. The hon. Gentleman who brought this matter before the House (Mr. Macfarlane) said that he desired a Royal Commission with a view to legislation. That must be kept distinctly before the view of the House in dealing with the question. I apprehend that where a Royal Commission with a view to legislation is asked for, there must always be two requisites very clearly and distinctly fulfilled. There must, in the first place, be a condition of facts very clearly and authentically laid before the House; and there must, in the second place, be connected with that condition of fact some defects in the law stated which are obviously leading to that state of things. I apprehend that it is not enough to show that there exists a condition of poverty, or that the men are living under hard conditions in various ways, but that, where there is a proposal to issue a Royal Commission with a view to legislation, that must be established.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he had not used the words "with a view to legislation."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I am sure I have no desire to misrepresent the hon. Member; but I took the words of the hon. Member down, as they seemed to me to be material. If it is not with a view to legislation, what is it with a view to? I think it is essential that that should be known. I have listened with the greatest attention to the speech of the hon. Gentleman and those who followed him, and it appeared to me that there was a singular want of any precise and authentic facts given, and that there was, perhaps, an even greater defect for the purposes of such an argument, for there was an entire failure to connect the existing condition of affairs with any alleged defects of the law. I think I may go further and say there is a third point to be desiderated before such a serious step is taken as that requested, and that is that some suggestion should be made as to the kind of alteration in the law with regard to which the Commission is to inquire. But upon that point, also, there has been an entire absence of any information. There are also one or two other points which will occur to anyone who has listened to the speeches of hon. Members. The proposition is that a Royal Commission shall be issued; and it strikes me with very great surprise that the whole of this discussion on the other side was begun, continued, and carried out without one single reference to the fact that, in the Royal Commission on Agriculture, which has been sitting for the last three or four years, there is a very instructive and detailed Report on the condition of the crofters of both the Highlands and the Islands, and the Gentleman who framed that very careful and instructive Report was examined and cross-examined by the Commissioners, and very full and detailed information on the subject was given. Not a word was said on that subject; and I venture to think, before the House is asked to entertain this matter, they should in some way consider that Report; and I should have expected hon. Gentlemen to point out wherein they thought that Report was defective or erroneous—what they thought should be added to it, or what had been overlooked in it. But not one word was

    781
    said on this subject. There have been various statements of a vague character made, contrasting the past with the present condition of the Highlands; but one would have naturally expected some reference to the well-known and acknowledged sources of information on the subject. I venture to say that if hon. Gentlemen will refer to those, they will see that there are many matters in which they are in very great error. The hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) has already pointed out that it is a mistake to suppose that the population of the Highlands has decreased as a whole. There has, to a certain extent, been migration, or change in the localities of the population; but it is a matter with regard to which there are statistics, and I believe it is beyond dispute that, if you take county by county, the Highlands now are more fully or thickly populated than at any time of which we have authentic record. I believe it is beyond doubt that the population of Sutherlandshire is now much larger than it was. The Island of Lewis has been referred to, and it was said that the population had grown from 10,000 to 25,000. In 30 years it has grown by more than 5,000 of that increase. I do not mean for a moment to say that there have not been in times past evictions in the Highlands of a very hard, and sometimes of a very cruel, kind. But I think it is also well known to those who take an interest in these matters that these evictions are matters of history, and that in recent times they have been very few. There has not, in fact, been anything that can be called systematic eviction; very much the reverse. Anything like systematic eviction on the part of the great proprietors in the Highlands does certainly not exist. It is unhappily true that the condition of many persons who live in the Highlands, particularly those called crofters, is very bad, and we all regret it. They live under conditions which are hard in some respects. They have been distinguished from the farmers by some of those who have spoken, and it is right to point out that what is generally known as a crofter is one who has a holding so small that he does not live by its produce alone. He fishes or labours in addition. He has a small farm of five or six acres; but he 'makes most of his living by working away from it. Well,
    782
    no doubt, the Land Question is, so far, involved in this; but it must not be left out of view that the business of the crofter is to as large an extent the prosecution of the other kinds of labour, especially fishing. I do not, for one moment, seek to say that there have not been, and that there are not now, defects in some cases in the administration of those properties, although I believe them to be only few. One point was referred to by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane). He began by making allusion to the Commission which was appointed, I think, about 10 or 12 years ago, to inquire into what is commonly called the "truck system" in Shetland. That was an evil, and I am sorry to say that it is not yet quite extinct. It is an evil the extent of which cannot be exaggerated. In certain eases, the proprietor, by his agreement with the tenants, had a right to have all the fish made over to him at a fixed price. On the other hand, these poor people bought their meal and other supplies from a store kept by him; and I am afraid, in some cases, the price of that was not always fixed at the time of buying. Any greater evil could not exist; but I believe it has diminished to a great extent. The Commission in Shetland had a great deal of difficulty to put it to an end. I know it is not yet altogether put to an end; and although it exists to a slight extent in some parts of the North-West Coast, I believe, from information we have received, that the attention which has been called to the matter recently will very likely lead to a cessation of the practice without legislation. Something has been said as to the character of the Highland population. So far as that is laudatory, I can endorse and reiterate every word. The population of these Highlands and Islands are, by nature, honest, law-abiding, and peaceful; and whenever there has been, as there has unhappily, in some instances, symptoms of lawlessness, they were, I believe, casual, and due, I believe, not to native, but exotic causes. Reference was made by the hon. Gentleman to an answer I gave some time ago with regard to the disturbances in the Island of Skye. He stated, correctly, that I adopted a method of trial that would lead to a lenient sentence, in the belief that they were misled into doing the thing they

    783
    did, and that if they were apprised, by however slight a punishment, that they were breaking the law, it would not be repeated. To that opinion I still adhere. Something has been said as to the factors on some estates. It is not the case, speaking generally, that Highland landlords are absentees. There are some cases, but not many. I dare say that sometimes it has happened, where many estates are under one person, that sufficient attention has not been called to the interests and grievances of tenants in particular localities. But I believe what has passed in the last two or three months will lead to what I trust will be a satisfactory result—that the condition of affairs where there were hardships and grievances has been brought under the attention of the proprietors themselves, and that they are now looking to the matter, and I believe are meeting with the tenants, and are going far to meet cases of grievance. I could mention names—but it would be useless—of well-known and large proprietors in the Highlands who have met their tenants in person, and are settling their differences, such as they are, in the way they have always succeeded in settling them in the past, and, as I hope, will succeed in settling them in the future. There have been a number of particulars referred to by hon. Members; but I do not think it would be necessary to go through them. I think I have shown sufficient cause for the resolution which the Government have arrived at, that no adequate ground has been shown for taking the very serious and, it may be, momentous step of issuing such a Commission as proposed. The necessity for such an inquiry has not been shown by those who have devoted and are devoting a very great deal of attention to the condition of the Highlands; and having watched with the utmost vigilance, and at the same time with the utmost sympathy, what is going on there, I believe that many of the statements made in such general terms cannot be sustained by facts.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that he had been twitted with not having referred to Blue Books and other documents in support of his statements; but he would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate that he had stated in the course of his remarks that he refrained from doing
    784
    so with the object of saving the time of the House.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—JUDICIAL RENTS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY, who had the following Notice upon the Paper:—
  "To call the attention of the House to the recent decisions of the Land Commission at Mullingar on the appeal of the landlord of the Lefroy Estate against the judicial rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioner; and to move—'That, in the opinion of this House, the Land Court is not entitled, under the Statute, to disregard the sworn testimony of several witnesses of an unimpeachable character who gave evidence on behalf of the tenants, and to decide merely upon the unsworn statement of a Court Valuer who had no previous acquaintance with the productive power of the land which he was sent to value,'"
  said, he wished to point out that on appeals taken by several tenants of Lord Longford from the judicial rents fixed by the Sub-Commission, the three Commissioners, Mr. O'Hagan, Mr. Litton, and Mr. Vernon, sat, and the rents which the Sub-Commissioners had fixed they raised considerably, and, in some cases, almost to the original amounts. A rent of £38 was reduced to £24, and raised to £29 by the Land Commission; a rent of £26 10 s. was reduced to £18 and raised to £25; a rent of £62 was reduced to £43 and raised to £57; a rent of £27 was reduced to £17 and raised to £25; a rent of £42 was reduced to £80 and raised to £37 6s. What he particularly invited the attention of the House to was the curious process by which this restoration to the high rents was effected. Before the Sub-Commissioners the tenants examined several competent witnesses, well known throughout the County Longford, as to the value of their farms —Mr. Gill, C.E., Mr. Harry M'Cann, a landlord and large farmer, and others. Their evidence was to the effect that even the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners were somewhat high. The lands were also valued by Mr. Cochrane, Lord Longford's own agent, whose valuation' amounted to about the same as the judicial rents. On the hearing of the appeals, the landlord did not call a single witness as to value. But the Court valuer, who knew nothing whatever about the country, and had never seen the lands until he glanced at them by the direction of the Land Commission, gave evidence in the case. The valua-

  785
  tion which the Court valuer had decided to put upon the holdings got somehow into the Dublin papers, and was published before the landlord's side of the case had been heard. The landlord very prudently thought, perhaps, that, as the evidence of the Court valuer was so favourable to him, it was useless to call witnesses. And he was perfectly right, for the Court went practically on the testimony of its valuer, who was not sworn. That, he contended, was a subject of sufficient importance to justify his action in bringing it under the notice of the House at that stage of the Session. He had unsuccessfully endeavoured to attain his object by putting the facts into the form of a Question, and, therefore, felt compelled to take this opportunity of calling attention to the matter. If these rulings of the Land Commission were allowed to go unchallenged, a precedent might be set up, under which the simple statement of a Court valuer, not made upon oath, might bear down the evidence of the most important and best-informed witness called on the tenants' behalf. If the appointment of a Court valuer was meant to be of this efficacy, he failed to see any use for the Land Commission. If the Land Commission had nothing to do but send down a valuer to a place, and then to take his statement and convert it into a decision, he did not see why the country should be put to the expense of having Land Courts in addition to Court valuers. The valuer appointed by the Court might be sent round, and a judicial decision founded upon his report. He, therefore, trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would give the Irish Members some assurance that nothing of this kind was intended.
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, he had communicated with the Land Commission, and had received an answer from the Secretary, to the effect that the Commissioners were empowered by the Statute to employ a valuer to report to them in cases where they thought it desirable, with the proviso that they might adopt his opinion or not as they thought fitting and just. They thought, therefore, that in the course they had taken in the case under notice, they were simply acting in accordance with the powers conferred on them by the Act, and they declined to enter into any explanation or
  786
  defence of their official acts. He (Mr. Trevelyan) could understand that the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), dwelling, perhaps, more on one side of a large question than on its entire aspect, should have thought it well to bring that matter before the House. On the other hand, it should be remembered that the Land. Commission was an independent tribunal, and as such was as little to be subjected to the criticism and the paternal care of the Executive Government as any other tribunal in the country. That was the theory which he (Mr. Trevelyan) had endeavoured to support in parrying the more numerous and more strongly urged objections taken to the decisions of that tribunal by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Benches immediately opposite to him; and he should be most inconsistent if he did not fall back on the same principle that evening. If the Commissioners thought it right to enter into a defence of their decisions in these cases, he had no doubt they could show that they had come to a sound decision after a very careful consideration of the evidence before them; but for them to enter into such a defence would be to set a most unconstitutional and dangerous precedent. It was impossible, also, that the House should constitute itself a Court of Appeal from any tribunal whatever. They knew how the Prime Minister had commented on the intention of the Lords' Committee to ransack the decisions of the Land Court, and had declared — with the loudly-expressed assent of his entire Party—that no tribunal could maintain its independence if it were subjected to such an ordeal. The Committee of the House of Lords had abstained from taking that course, and the same rule must guide the action of the Government of the day. If the Land Commission were once to be challenged and questioned from the quarter of the House to which the hon. Member belonged, the ultimate effect must he disastrous to the interests of the tenants of Ireland. Therefore, in the interests both of the general public and of the Irish tenants, he (Mr. Trevelyan) must respectfully decline to enter any further into that question.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that he had received several representations from Irish landlords, who were as much dissatisfied with the decisions of the

  787
  Appellate Tribunal created by Parliament to decide the question of a fair rent, as the tenants whose case had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy); but he had uniformly refused to bring their complaints before the House, because he thought both sides ought to be bound by the decision of the highest Appellate Court, and he could have wished that the hon. Member for Longford had taken the same course. The course he had recommended to landlords was the one which the tenants also should follow. Otherwise, in what way was finality to be attained under any circumstances, if Members of Parliament were to bring the cases of individual litigants who were not satisfied with the decisions given by the duly-constituted final Court of Appeal before the House of Commons, which had no opportunity of examining the witnesses, of seeing the land, or in any way trying the matter in dispute? As to the Court valuer not being sworn, it might be an improvement to take his evidence on oath; but hon. Members opposite knew very well it was not the usual course; the change, however, if desirable, might be effected by legislation. The intention of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite appeared to be to teach the Irish tenants that they were treated with injustice, and not to be content unless they obtained as great a reduction of rent as they expected. That was not a patriotic course to pursue after the labours Parliament had undergone—after their violation of all the principles upon which land legislation had hitherto proceeded, after all Ireland had suffered, and after all England had endured, to proceed in this way; and he trusted that hon. Gentlemen opposite would do their utmost, in an honest and earnest manner, to teach the unfortunate people of Ireland to respect and be content with the law, and to avail themselves of the advantages which had been offered to them. Unless they did so, they would have no cessation of that which was so ruinous to the interests of that country.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the theory broached by the hon. Member for Gal-way (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was a very peculiar one—namely, that the Irish people should be content with things as they were, and that they should not
  788
  follow the example of all other civilized countries in endeavouring to improve the laws when they were found to be bad.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that he simply asked hon. Members opposite to do what he had done with regard to the landlords—decline to bring forward the complaints.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he held that the most obvious way of improving the law, when it was found inadequate to protect the interests of the people, was to call attention to practical examples of its actual working. He was not surprised to hear that the Irish landlords were dissatisfied with the operations of the Land Act, because they had expected to have nothing taken off their rents, and they keenly resented the reduction of a single penny. His hon. Friend (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was entitled to the gratitude of the whole of the farmers of Ireland for bringing the question forward, although the manner in which it had been met by the Government did not promise any very useful result. He protested against the bold official answer of the Commissioners to the allegations of his hon. Friend, who had not called in question their decisions so much as to challenge the propriety and judiciousness of the mode in which those decisions had been arrived at, they having sheltered themselves behind their official position as a tribunal. Throughout their decisions—and it was a most remarkable thing—the Sub-Commissioners had, in their decisions, shown a tendency to approach nearer to the line of the landlord's valuation than that of the tenants. He (Mr. Sexton) objected to the Government having studiously withheld a comparative settlement of the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners with the rents which the tenants had been in the habit of paying, although the Government possessed full information upon the subject. He also objected to the mode in which the official valuers made their valuations, for they fixed the value of a farm at its present letting value, without taking the improvements into consideration, and thus defeated the objects of the Land Act, the interest of the tenant in his improvements being destroyed. Then the official valuers had not been selected with proper discretion. He had received general reports relating to those gentlemen, who,

  789
  to his own knowledge, had in many cases drawn up their reports with very little discretion; and if he had liked to have echoed the Tory Gentlemen in their tirades against the decisions of the Land Commissioners, he could have enlightened the House considerably from the tenant's side of the question. For instance, Mr. Charles Grey was an Englishman, and yet his evidence was preferred to that of respectable local experts, and his appointment was in other respects open to objection, for he was an agent for Lord Derby, who had been called in numerous cases as official valuer. This gentleman had bought the town lands of Ballinrobe, and immediately raised the rent upon 300 acres of land by £200. Having used his feudal rights in that direction, he then indulged in the sharp practice of selling the land at the increased rent, making an enormous profit. Mr. Scully, the gentleman who purchased the land, found it impossible to collect the rack-rents. No valuation this gentleman gave would give satisfaction, however just; and he (Mr. Sexton) went on the principle that those official valuers should be sworn, and that they should be above suspicion.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—THE TRANSVAAL— THE BOERS AND THE NATIVE TRIBES.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERrose, according to Notice, to call attention to the affairs of the Transvaal, and to the aggression of the Boers on the tribes of the Chiefs Montsioa and Monkoroane. It was well known, he said, that these Chiefs were loyal to us, and that in consequence they had been placed under a ban by the Boers, and subjected to every kind of oppression. The aggressions that had been made upon them had been attended with great atrocities, and were not in themselves justified by the offences which had been made the pretext for such proceedings. He hoped that the Government would do all in their power to impress upon the Boers that they must carry out the stipulation of the recent Treaty, for unless they did so, he was afraid that a large part of the territory of these tribes would be desolated. Representations had been made to Mr. Hudson; but Mr. Hudson evidently felt that the Colonial Office did not want to be troubled about the Transvaal, and tried to disbelieve the statements. He
  790
  (Mr. R. N. Fowler) thought the good faith of England was involved in protecting these unfortunate Chiefs.
  MR. CROPPER, in supporting the remarks of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler), said, it was known on the authority of a missionary, Mr. Mackenzie, who was labouring in the field once occupied by the venerable Dr. Moffat, that the marauders were carrying away cattle, destroying farmsteads, and shooting people, and thus retarding the civilization of a district in which European dress was worn, good houses were built, land cultivated, and the breeds of cattle improved. Unless the Government did something by strengthening the hands of Mr. Hudson, in order to put a stop to these ravages, which he believed were encouraged by the Boers, the race would be destroyed. They certainly ought to be allowed to purchase arms for their own defence.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that although his experience of the Colonial Office had been but short, it had been long enough for him to realize that the Transvaal was the region in the whole world where it was most difficult to get at the truth, although what had been said was more or less accurate. Such a contingency made it most difficult to form an impartial judgment, motive being so mixed up with everything said or done in this connection. But there was no indisposition on the part of the adjoining Resident, Mr. Hudson, or on the part of the Colonial Office, to receive representations, because they were unpleasant; and communications had passed between him and the Colonial Office in which he had gone very fully into the matter. He was, therefore, not subject to the implication of censure brought against him. His right of interference only extended to the tribes lying beyond the Transvaal; and he had no right whatever—and, therefore, he would have been exceeding his duty—to remonstrate with the Government of the Transvaal, which was an independent State, while we had no territorial rights or jurisdiction in the territory of the tribes, the Protectorate of whom we had declined. But we had a right to insist on the Transvaal Government, from whose territory the majority of the offenders came, observing the terms of their Convention with us, which he believed they were

  791
  anxious to do, although the Transvaal Government and people had never cheerfully acquiesced in the award which assigned this territory to the tribes. Still, the Transvaal Government was, he believed, as desirous of standing well with European and English public opinion as any other Government, and they recognized the bounden duty that a civilized Government had to observe their promises, their engagements, and their Treaties; and to carry out the laws of right and justice. He believed his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler) would have done service in calling attention to these matters, and bringing to bear the force of public opinion on the authorities of the Transvaal. Although it was true that these Chiefs had been disposed to be friendly towards the English, yet we had never accepted their assistance; and, therefore, they had no claim upon us. He hoped the time was not far distant when they should get rid of the division of the Natives into friends of the Boers and friends of the English. What appeared to be necessary was the organization of a mounted police force to arrest the small bodies of freebooters, and take them over the border; and a comparatively small force would be sufficient. The Colonial Office would continue to impress on the Transvaal Government the necessity of observing the laws of right and justice and keeping the terms of the Convention.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—VOTING PAPERS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. WARTON, who had the following Notice of Motion on the Paper:—
  "To move, 'That it is desirable that votes for candidates for seats in this House he taken by means of voting papers,'"
  said, that the plan he proposed was that on the nomination day, or on some other occasion, the elector should be at liberty to take his voting paper to the Returning Officer with his vote inscribed. There suit would be that in many cases there would be no necessity for a poll, and so expense would be saved. In other instances only a very small number of polling stations would be required for those who preferred to vote in the present manner. This system would, he maintained, conduce to the purity of elections, lessen the turmoil and unhealthy excitement of such occasions—an essen-
  792
  tial advantage should women acquire the suffrage—besides marking the distinction between those of the electorate who were not afraid to give an open vote and those who had not the courage of their opinions, but who preferred the system of the Ballot, a system which he (Mr. Warton) regarded as un-English, sneaking, cowardly, and untruthful. The Forms of the House did not allow him to move the Resolution; but as it was the duty of every hon. Member to contribute to the general stock of ideas, he wished briefly to put on record his views as to the desirability of the change he advocated.
  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.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) £85,244, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board, Ireland.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was very sorry if, by moving that the Committee be counted, he had interrupted the digestion of any hon. Member; but he had thought it necessary to have at least one Member of the Irish Government in attendance while they were discussing the present Vote. The point he wished to call attention to was the conduct of some of the Chairmen of the Boards of Guardians in Ireland. He understood at present that it was the rule of the Poor Law Board that the Chairman of a Board of Guardians could refuse to put any vote he pleased from the chair. Perhaps the Government would inform him if he was wrong in asserting that the Chairman had that right. That being the state of the law, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the harsh and unjust manner in which the obligations of the Chairmen of Boards of Guardians in Ireland were performed. He would take first a case which occurred in connection with his own constituency. Some time ago a member of the Board (Mr. Leach) thought it right

    793
    that the Board should pronounce an opinion, as representing the people of the district, upon a question of legislation before Parliament; and he, therefore, proposed a resolution in connection with the Prevention of Crime Bill. But the Chairman of the Board of Guardians refused to put the resolution, and left the chair; and in that way he reduced the Board to such a condition that it was not capable of passing any resolution, either upon that or any other subject. He wished to invite the attention of the Committee to the way in which this kind of arbitrary exercise of power worked. Mr. Pearce Joyce, the Chairman in question—against whom he would say nothing personally—was a landowner, and was a member of the Board of Guardians, not by virtue of election, but from his position as a magistrate. He was an ex-officio member of the Board; but as he also happened to be Chairman of the Board, he had the power of preventing that popular representative Body from passing a resolution which he considered derogatory to the interests of other classes; and thus the Board of Guardians, in all such matters as that, was left at the disposal of any gentleman who happened to be Chairman of the Board of Guardians for the time being. The resolution proposed in this case was a resolution condemnatory of the Prevention of Crime Bill; but in the case of the Board of Guardians of Carrick-on-Suir, the motion was a motion not condemnatory of that Bill, or dealing with any measure of that kind, but a measure in favour of the Arrears of Rent Bill, then before the House of Commons. The Chairman of the Board of Guardians, on that occasion, refused to allow a resolution in favour of the presentation of a memorial to be put; and the result of that action he (Mr. O'Connor) would not further allude to now, because it would form the topic of a discussion which would come later on. But it was another case in which the Chief Secretary for Ireland would see how the rule worked. It operated with the greatest hardship, both upon the Board of Guardians and the people they represented; and the conduct of the Chairman was not only unjust towards the ratepayers and the Board, but it was cruel and unpatriotic towards Her Majesty's Government themselves. He con-
    794
    tended that resolutions of this kind would give the Irish Executive a satisfactory indication of what the wants and the wishes of a large portion of the people, whose cases they had to deal with, were. It would, however, be impossible to make the Government acquainted with the views of the Irish people if every resolution of the kind was to be thwarted because a representative of the landlord class happened to be in the chair. He did not know whether they were going to have any more of the legislation upon the Irish Land Question which had been so closely connected with the present Parliament. Probably any further legislation upon the subject might not commend itself to the judgment of the Government; and he would suggest to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in case he found himself unable to bring in a large measure of reform, that he might do good service by the introduction of some small measures connected with municipal work, and the administering of the affairs of the Irish ratepayers. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would very soon be able to devote his energies to the remedying of many of the evils of local government in Ireland; and, in the first place, he wished the right hon. Gentleman to know that, at the present moment, there was no appearance of anything like popular representation in most of the Local Government Boards of Ireland. So far as the administration of the Poor Law was concerned, one-half of the Boards of Guardians were ex-officio Guardians, appointed simply because they were magistrates. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) believed the right hon. Gentleman to be a sound Liberal, and he was satisfied that that mode of appointment would not be in accordance with any of those maxims of representative government which the right hon. Gentleman, when out of Office, had so strongly put forward; and especially the maxim that the people who were to dispose of the funds raised by themselves should be elected by the ratepayers, and that the control of the rates should not be in the hands of a class of persons who did not represent the ratepayers at all. At present the magistrates, who were only ex-officio Guardians, possessed the power of controlling the popular vote in Ireland. He thought the Chief Secretary to the Lord

    795
    Lieutenant of Ireland might, with, advantage, turn his attention to the amendment of the law in this respect, and the Government could have no safer guide to the wants and wishes of the people than the votes of the Boards of Guardians.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that before he proceeded to lay before the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary the facts of the particular question of which he had given the right hon. Gentleman Notice yesterday, he wished to say a few words respecting the ruinous pressure of the instalment of the Seed Rate upon the Guardians of several Unions in the West of Ireland. The Government had already had their attention directed to the matter by a Question which had been put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the County of Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), in regard to the Swinford Union. It appeared that a levy had been made upon the Guardians of that Union for the repayment of a sum of £7,000, and a copy of a resolution of the Board had been forwarded to him (Mr. Sexton), and to his hon. Friend the Member for the county, in which the Guardians declared their inability to pay that instalment of £7,000; and they added that, if the Local Government Board insisted upon it, they would be placed in the position of being unable to carry on the ordinary business of the Union—of feeding and housing the poor; and it would, therefore, be necessary to resign their position, and allow the Local Government Board to appoint Vice Guardians for that district in their place. Now, this opened up a very serious number of considerations, having regard to the necessity and importance of attending to the wants of the poor; and he should be glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he had arranged for the Local Government Board to give an extension of time for repayment—at least until after the harvest was gathered in. The case of the Swinford Union was one of five Unions in regard to which the pressure was more widely spread than in any other district in the West of Ireland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take advantage of the occasion, so as to give relief to the Unions in the West of Ireland generally. In the West of Ireland the persons who had to pay rates were occupiers of the poorest
    796
    class—men with small holdings and with large families, who were hovering upon the verge of pauperism themselves. If the Government stood rigidly by the letter of the Act of Parliament, and compelled these persons to pay the instalments of the Seed Rate upon the day they became due, they would defeat the object they had originally in view, and would increase the number of paupers, for it was an extremely narrow line that divided these small occupiers in the West of Ireland from the condition of pauperism; and until the present harvest was gathered in, it would be utterly impossible to make any provision for the payment of this instalment of the Seed Rate. The money could not be collected; the elected Guardians would abandon the attempt to discharge their duties, Vice Guardians would have to be appointed, and the number of paupers would be much increased in consequence of any stringent attempt that might be made, to collect the rate. The whole effect would be very disastrous. He had received a letter yesterday from one of the Guardians of the Tubbercorry Union, in the county of Sligo, in which an extension of time until the 1st of December was asked, so that the farmers might have the advantage of the coming harvest. A resolution to that effect had been passed by the Board of Guardians. He could not imagine a more reasonable request; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would, not only in the case of the Swinford Union, but also in regard to several other Unions in the West—where the occupiers were the tenants of small holdings and were poor and needy— consider in a generous and statesmanlike spirit the necessity of keeping these people in their homes, by refraining from putting pressure upon them for the repayment of the Seed Rate the moment it became due. In regard to the Car-rick-on-8uir Board of Guardians, he had asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, under what circumstances, upon what evidence, and upon what authority the Irish Local Government Board had dissolved that Board and appointed Vice Guardians to act in their place? He had also asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay upon the Table copies of any letters and other official documents which were in existence upon the subject? The

    797
    right hon. Gentleman replied in a manner strictly official, but not in a manner to increase his (Mr. Sexton's) stock of information very largely, that the Board of Guardians had been dissolved because, through the default of the Board, the duties had not been duly and effectually discharged in accordance with the Act in force for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland. Now, it was necessary to go back to the last election of the Board in April, in order to make the circumstances which had occurred intelligible, because the difficulty arose in consequence of the conduct of the Chairman then elected, who had made himself the instrument of the landlord and ex-officio section of the Board against the wishes of the majority of the elected Guardians. It was in consequence of the conduct of that gentleman that such a discreditable state of affairs had arisen between the Carrick-on-Suir Board of Guardians and the Local Government Board. When the new Board was elected, in April last, it became at once apparent that there was about to be a dispute between the landlord section and the elected Guardians; and when the day of election came on, Mr. William Atkinson, of Portlaw, a well known magistrate, was proposed as Chairman by the landlord interest. Another candidate was proposed by the elected Guardians; and, on a vote being taken, it became at once evident that it would be decided, not upon the merits of the two men, but upon Party and social principles. The ex-officio Guardians voted to a man for the landlords' nominee; while the elected Guardians voted to a man for their own nominee. Twenty-four voted for Mr. William Atkinson, and 22 elected Guardians voted on the other side. Mr. William Atkinson was therefore declared elected. It must be borne in mind that the terms "landlord" and "magistrate" were convertible terms in this matter. The landlords also seized the Vice Chairmanship of the Union when the motion for the election of a Vice Chairman came before the Board. Now, the ex-officio Guardians had, by law, an equal share in the control of the affairs of the Union with the elected Guardians; but they never turned up, except when there was some amendment to be made, or some job to be done. They left the toilsome affairs of the Union from week to week
    798
    throughout the year to be discharged by the elected Guardians, and they never showed up at all, except to support the chair in some question in which the interests of the landlords were concerned, or to make some new appointment. In this Carrick-on-Suir Union, in which the Board had recently been dissolved, the business was generally carried on from week to week by gentlemen who had been elected by the ratepayers, and the meetings were seldom attended by more than two or three deputy lieutenants and justices of the peace, who constituted the ornamental part of the Board. But at the meeting in April they attended in full force, and they elected the landlords' nominee as Chairman. To show the animus which governed the proceedings, he might state that among the ex-officio Guardians of Carrick-on-Suir there were several Noblemen who had taken a prominent part in the House of Lords and elsewhere against the Land Bill, foremost among them being the Marquess of Waterford, the Earl of Clonmell and the Earl of Bessborough. It became very soon apparent that the Chairman appointed in this way by a purely landlord vote of 24 ex-officio against 22 elected Guardians, intended to use his power to gag any free expression of opinion on the part of the elected Guardians. The same disposition was manifested by the Vice Chairman; and, as he (Mr. Sexton) had already said, the animus of the ex-officio Guardians of the Union was shown in the way in which the Marquess of Waterford had exerted himself against the Land Bill. While the noble Marquess was straining every nerve to defeat the Land Bill, his friends at the Carrick-on-Suir Board were exerting themselves by their vote — never attending the meetings of the Board at any other time of the year—to prevent the elected Guardians from expressing the wishes of the ratepayers in reference to the Land Act. Thus they had, at one end, the Marquess of Waterford most actively opposing the Land Bill in the House of Lords; and, at the other end, his friends, the Poor Law Guardians, preventing the expression of the wishes of the people. Now, it did not appear to him (Mr. Sexton) that an English Board of Guardians was limited or restricted in this manner. He had glanced at the Report of the Select Committee on Public Petitions, and he found there

    799
    that English Boards of Guardians petitioned very much as they pleased. For instance, some of them had presented Petitions in favour of preventing the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday, a question of interest and importance, no doubt, but one which certainly did not touch so closely the business of a Board of Guardians as the Arrears of Rent Bill of the Government; and it was upon that question that the first attempt was made to stifle and gag the vote of the Carrick-on-Suir Board of Guardians. English Boards of Guardians had also presented Petitions in regard to the highway rates, births, marriages, and deaths, and various other matters; but not upon one which had so important a connection with the feeding and clothing of the destitute poor as the Arrears of Rent Bill for Ireland. But while in England the action of the Boards of Guardians was perfectly free, in Ireland a deliberate gag had been manufactured; and any Chairman of an Irish Board of Guardians, at his discretion, might refuse to accept any motion laid before him by the Guardians, on the ground that it was not relevant to the business of the Board. He would now point out the nature of the question upon which his conflict between the Carrick-on-Suir Board of Guardians and their Chairman first arose; and it would be necessary, in the first place, to refer to a meeting which took place on the 17th of June, when Mr. Rockett, an elected Guardian, gave notice of a motion that Parliament should be petitioned to expedite the passing of the Arrears of Rent Bill, in the hope of stopping evictions, and thereby saving the rates and much suffering. Could there be imagined a subject more relevant to the business of the Board of Guardians than that of stopping evictions? It concerned the labours of the Guardians doubly; for what was the result of evictions on the rates of the Union? In the first place, an eviction turned out a certain number of persons, who, immediately they were turned out, became a burden upon the rates, by being obliged to go to the workhouse; and, in the second place, those who were not turned out were placed in danger of a similar fate, by having to bear the additional burdens placed upon the rates. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland believe that on the 17th of June the Vice Chairman
    800
    of the Carrick-on-Suir Board, Mr. Peter Walsh, an ex-officio Guardian, refused to receive the motion, although, only a very short time before, he had himself seconded a motion which was submitted to the Board in reference to the Phoenix Park assassinations? It was a laudable thing, no doubt, to pass a resolution deprecating that deplorable occurrence; but if it was free for the Board to pass a resolution as to the assassination of a Nobleman and a Gentleman in Phoenix Park, how could it be said that the passing of a resolution concerning the Arrears of Rent Bill was irrelevant to the business of the Board? Nevertheless, Mr. Walsh, J.P., in the plenitude of his wisdom and power, decided it was not a proper thing to petition the House of Commons to do anything calculated to stop evictions. The elected Guardians on that occasion gave way to this most indecent and irrational action of Mr. Peter Walsh, and proceeded to the ordinary business of the Board, abdicating their own functions in favour of Mr. Walsh's dictation. The next phase of the matter occurred on the 1st of July. On that day the circumstances arose which led ultimately to the dissolution of the Board; and he would read a statement from an elected Guardian, Mr. Shea, who took a prominent part in the proceedings. Mr. Shea said—
    "On the 1st July, the usual business was proceeded with fairly enough, until the correspondence came to be read. There were three letters read by the clerk, and, seeing there was no action being taken on them, I moved that the consideration of the three letters be postponed until next Board day; it was seconded by another Guardian. An ex-officio Guardian moved, as an amendment, that they be marked "read;" and this was seconded by another ex-officio member. The Chairman refused to put either, and thereby ignored the right of the Board, taking to himself the right of jury, judge, and Chairman. It was then moved and seconded by two elected Guardians, that the Board adjourn until next Board day, 8th July. This was put by the Chairman and passed by a large majority. On that day, after the minutes were read, it was moved and seconded that we commence with the ordinary or usual business, and when we would have come to where it broke off last day—namely, the correspondence, the adjourned business might go on. The clerk concurred as to this being the proper course to adopt; however, the Chairman refused it, but decided himself that the adjourned business should go on first. The first business, according to his ruling (the Chairman's), was the last of those three letters which were severally read on 1st July. The clerk read again the third letter (from Millstreet), recommending a resolution passed by their Board asking the

    801
    Legislature to remedy the Land Act of last year with regard to leaseholders, which amendment would he very acceptable with the view of furthering its object. I proposed its adoption; it was seconded by another elected Guardian, and the Chairman refused to put it to a vote. Two other elected Guardians moved and seconded that the Board adjourn to a future day. The Chairman put this, and it was carried by a large majority; and on two subsequent meetings, the same letter was put before us, as our first business, by the Clerk and the Chairman. We did not change regarding its importance. The Chairman kept it before us as our first business for three or four meetings, believing we would be dissolved on account of his resistance.—Faithfully yours, J. SHEA."
    Now, what was the first question which arose? Was the resolution which the Chairman refused to receive relevant to the business of the Board of Guardians or not? At the first meeting, the resolution was refused by the Chairman, who was the instrument of the Marquess of Waterford and other Noblemen in the district, who had been opponents of the Land Bill and the Arrears of Rent Bill in the House of Lords. The resolution refused by Mr. Walsh was one asking the Board of Guardians to petition the House of Commons in favour of including leaseholders in the benefit of the Arrears of Rent Bill. The question was one which was materially connected with the subject of rack rents. It was often the custom to compel the leaseholder to pay a very high rack rent, under a promise of making him a tenant in the end, and the lease was frequently made an instrument of torture. The leaseholder was liable to be turned out and become a burden to the rates; and, therefore, the improvement of the legal position of these leaseholders was as much part of the business of the Guardians as any other duty or means by which they could keep down the rates. The Chairman refused to receive the resolution, which was one that had been passed by the Millstreet Board of Guardians, and by other Boards of Guardians in Ireland. Similar resolutions had been transmitted to the Local Government Board in Dublin and received by them; and, notwithstanding that fact, the Local Government Board upheld the Chairman of the Carrick-on-Suir Board in refusing to put the resolution, although they had accepted it altogether in regard to their other Unions. What consistency was there in such a course—that the Chairman should have
    802
    discretion to refuse or accept a resolution just as he liked? He (Mr. Sexton) thought that if there was a rule which gave to the Chairman such, an arbitrary power, it ought at once to be got rid of; and that in Ireland, as in England, at the meetings of a Board of Guardians, as well as those of any other public body, the opinion of the majority of the Guardians ought to be a decisive rule for the conduct of the proceedings. He was able to show that this very resolution had been passed by several Boards of Guardians; and he was able to show also, by a letter from the Local Government Board themselves, addressed, in the year 1869, to the Boards of Guardians in Ireland generally, that an invitation was given to such Boards to express their approval of the Land Bill. Not very long ago, the Prime Minister and the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), wrote letters to the Carrick-on-Suir Board of Guardians, acknowledging with thanks a resolution passed by the Board in reference to the Land Act; and yet the course pursued in this instance by the Chairman of the Board, and which was similar to the course which had already received the approval of the Prime Minister, was to be deprecated by a minor authority, and visited with the heaviest penalty it was possible to inflict—namely, the dissolution of the Board. By the 7th Article of the Poor Law Regulations it was prescribed that when three or more Guardians were present at a meeting, the majority should have the right to adjourn the Board; and, as the Chairman refused to receive a resolution which the majority of the Board considered to be relevant to their business, they refused to go on with any other business. A motion was made for the adjournment of the Board, and it was carried. When the Guardians met on the next occasion, an elected Guardian suggested that the ordinary business of the Union as to outdoor relief should be at once transacted. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to note that fact, because the Local Government Board appeared to have fallen into a great misapprehension in regard to it. They appeared to have thought that the neglect to discharge the ordinary business of the Board was due to the elected Guardians, instead of the Chairman,

    803
    But the Chairman, with extraordinary obstinacy, refused to do anything at all until the other question was settled, and the majority decided to adjourn the meeting. On the next day, after refusing to accept the resolution of the Millstreet Board, and also refusing the request of the elected Guardians to go on with the ordinary business, the same deadlock was found to exist. The Chairman still refused to transact the ordinary business. "No," he said, "we must take the business where it was left off on the last day." But the Guardians refused to give way in regard to what they conceived to be their duty, and they had a perfect right to say that the leaseholders ought to be protected by the State. They had certainly as good a right to take that course as they had in 1869, when the Local Government Board invited them to do a similar thing. But the Chairman would have no other business done. The elected Guardians again moved the adjournment, and it was agreed to by a large majority. That happened on four occasions, and the Chairman repeated the course he had taken before. On each occasion the elected Guardians invited him to proceed with the ordinary business of the day, and then to turn to the disputed question of the Millstreet resolution. They were willing to sign cheques for outdoor relief, and to keep up supplies for the workhouse, and to do all the ordinary work of the Board. But this gentleman, Mr. William Atkinson, inspired by the zeal of a commoner acting on behalf of people in a higher sphere, felt that he could not retire from the position he had taken up, and refused to go on with the ordinary business of the day. Three several times, at three successive meetings, he thrust forward the Millstreet letter, and said— "Until you mark that as read and throw it under the table, and until you give way to my despotic dictation, I will not allow you to transact the ordinary business of the Union." The inevitable result was the only result that could happen; and after this occurrence had taken place on three or four occasions, the Local Government Board sent down their Inspector, Mr. Hamilton, to make an inquiry. Now, it would be found that Mr. Hamilton, instead of applying himself to the real question, whether the Chairman ought or ought
    804
    not to have refused the resolution in favour of a leaseholder, talked in a kind of grandfatherly way to the Guardians about the duty of shaking hands and making up their differences, and then delivered himself of a number of platitudes on the blessings of harmony and united action, which might have been appreciated in the pulpit on a Sunday, but which, on a week day, at a meeting of a Board of Guardians, were rather absurd and irrelevant to the business in hand. The upshot of all of it was, that on the 20th of July, the Local Government Board issued a sealed Order, dissolving the Carrick-on-Suir Board of Guardians, for no other reason than that they had insisted on the right of expressing their opinion on a matter immediately relevant to the condition of the farmers and the increase of pauperism. And what were the two points taken up by the Local Government Board? They said that the Chairman had declined to put a resolution which was wholly unconnected with the duties of a Board of Guardians. If so, why did the Local Government Board, in 1869, invite the Board of Guardians all over Ireland to pass resolutions dealing with the Land Bill? If this resolution was not connected with the duty of a Board of Guardians, why did the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) write to this and other Boards of Guardians in the South of Ireland thanking them for the resolutions they had passed in reference to the Land Bill? If what the Guardians did formerly merited laudation, how was it that they were now to be visited with the heaviest penalty that could be inflicted upon them? He invited the right hon. Gentleman to answer that question specifically, and not to shelter himself behind an Act of Parliament, or behind the official action of the Local Government Board. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee plainly, whether a resolution asking for the infusion of the leaseholders into the Land Act would not give security against the spread of pauperism, and. the increase of rates; and, if so, whether it was not relevant to the duty of a Board of Guardians? He awaited the right hon. Gentleman's answer with some confidence, because he did not think the right hon. Gentleman, in any emergency of official life, would shelter himself under an equivocation. The

    805
    second position taken up by the Local Government Board was, that the Guardians' meetings had been adjourned with a view of interfering with the transaction of the ordinary business of the Union. Now, he contended that that assertion was perfectly untrue. There never was a more unfounded statement made. The meetings were not adjourned with that view at all. As he had already pointed out, the Guardians at each of the four meetings which formed the subject-matter of the complaint of the Local Government Board offered and pressed the Chairman to proceed with the ordinary business of the day. The Chairman refused on each occasion, and if there had been any dislocation of the business of the Union the fault rested with the Chairman in having refused to proceed with it, and not with the Guardians, who wished to go on with it. On these two statements—namely, that the resolution would interfere with the business of the Board, and that the meetings were adjourned with a view of interfering with the transaction of the ordinary business, both of which were equally groundless and equally unfounded in fact, the Local Government Board, by a sealed Order, proceeded to dissolve the Carrick-on-Suir Board of Guardians, and appointed paid Vice Guardians to transact the business. The whole business of the Union had been dislocated and disorganized by this action of the Local Government Board. The matter had occasioned no little excitement in Ireland. Meetings had been held all over the country for the purpose of protesting against this despotic treatment of the Carrick-on-Suir Board. It would be seen that the ex-officio Guardians, composed of noble lords and magistrates, were attempting, by high-handed measures, to set themselves against the opinions and wishes of the elected Guardians. Resolutions had already been passed by many Boards of Guardians condemning the action of the Local Government Board in regard to the Guardians of Carrick-on-Suir. A committee had been appointed in Carrick-on-Suir itself, which had passed a resolution respectfully inviting the co-operation of all other Boards of Guardians in Ireland to sustain them in their efforts to secure freedom of discussion and liberty for the representatives of the ratepayers in all questions affecting the rates. They
    806
    pointed out that they had been thwarted by the landlords' nominees in simply insisting on their right to perform the business of the Board, and express and record their opinion by vote on important questions affecting their constitution, which many other Poor Law Boards throughout Ireland had been allowed to consider and decide without objection, and which they were anxious to have put to the vote, under the Poor Law Regulations, when they were obstructed and prevented. It would be seen that the Carrick-on-Suir Board of Guardians had been prevented from submitting a resolution which had been put and decided by other Boards without remonstance from the Local Government Board. They had also been prevented from putting a resolution which English Boards of Guardians were enabled to discuss and decide without the slightest trouble; and they had been placed under heavy penalties, simply because they wanted to do what the Poor Law Board themselves invited them to do in 1869, and what the Prime Minister thanked them for doing a few months ago. The inconsistency of the Local Government Board was incapable of explanation, and the step taken by the Local Government Board was a blow aimed at the rights of 160 Boards of all Guardians in Ireland. A feeling of deep resentment in consequence of the unjustifiable action taken by the Local Government Board had spread throughout the majority of the 160 Boards existing in Ireland; and unless the Government could see their way to reverse the action of the Local Government Board, and allow the elected Guardians to have a vote in matters concerning their own interests and the business of the Union, he foresaw that they would have to dissolve many other Boards of Guardians in Ireland, and would have to appoint a corps of Vice Guardians, the effect of which upon the Public Revenue would be painfully felt next year, besides depriving the ratepayers of their elected representatives, whose services they had a right to retain. He believed that if the Guardians were not speedily restored to office, the collection of poor rates in Ireland would become a matter of very great difficulty and trouble indeed.
    MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) has touched upon a question which, certainly, is a very burning question in several quarters

    807
    of Ireland. I have been extremely interested in the hon. Member's speech, because I have studied this question very carefully from a certain point onwards, and I was not at all sorry to hear the previous history of the question as detailed by the hon. Member. Although I receive his statement, if he will allow me to say so, as an ex parte statement— by which I mean a statement put forward by a person having strong convictions, although speaking in all possible good faith—still I must say that it throws considerable light on that future part of the story which is the only part of it that has come before me officially. There was a great deal in the statement of the hon. Member to interest most people, and a great deal in it has certainly interested me very much in regard to the principles of local government, which certainly do not appear to me to be carried out by the Institutions which now exist either in Ireland or on this side of the Channel. My business, however, is with the question as I find it. My own opinions upon the matter of municipal and local representation in Ireland are very well known to hon. Gentlemen who were present in the discussions in Committee as to the mode of electing Poor Law Guardians. I regret that that Bill has not got to a more advanced stage this year. It is quite idle to suppose that local Boards have been established for any other purpose than to manage their own affairs. The hon. Member seems to think that, in the conduct of local affairs, the principle should be adopted in Ireland of enabling the people to control and manage their own affairs through their own representatives, fairly chosen. Now, that is a principle which has never been carried to extreme perfection in regard to the local representation of the rural districts either here in England or in Ireland, and, therefore, I approach the question with a considerable feeling on behalf of those who consider that the Boards of Guardians in Ireland are unduly influenced by the ex-officio element. But, unfortunately, I am bound to accept these bodies as I find them. The law on the matter is absolutely clear, and the law is that which we are bound to enforce. Upon that point, it is almost unnecessary to say, after expressing this opinion, that the Local Government Board did not act without very careful
    808
    consideration, taking legal opinions at every stage, and those legal opinions appeared in their eyes to leave them no choice whatever. The real point, however, upon which this question turns is the power of the Chairman. In what proportion the Guardians who vote for him are ex-officio Guardians, or in what proportion they are under the influence of the ex-officio Guardians, is a matter which legally does not concern us at all; but, having taken legal opinions upon the question, we came to the conclusion that the Chairman had an absolute right to say what business should be put before the Board of Guardians, and what should not. Well, that proposition being once ascertained, the rest became very plain; and, unfortunately, there was only one solution of the matter. In the history of the case from that point upwards, the account that has been laid before us differs very slightly from that which has been put by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sexton). It differs only in one particular; but that particular, I may say, appears to me to be rather an important one. A question arose in the Carrick-on-Suir Union as to the right of the majority present to adjourn a meeting, and the adjournment took place in consequence of a resolution, which I think the hon. Member read, and which had been communicated by the Millstreet Board of Guardians, referring to the extension of the benefits of the Land Act to leaseholders. The hon. Gentleman and the Local Government Board agree so far. The Chairman of the Board of Guardians refused to put that resolution, and, in consequence, the majority of the Board of Guardians adjourned the meeting. Now comes the sole point of difference between the information that was laid before us and the case that has been stated by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman, as far as I can gather, says the Chairman, on the occasions on which the Board met subsequently, would not allow the Guardians to proceed to the business of the Union, unless under the condition of dealing with and throwing aside the resolution which they wished to submit. On that point I can find— and I have searched very carefully—no trace whatever in the documents before us to bear out the statement of the hon. Gentleman; and I must say it is an unfortunate thing that the Guardians did

    809
    not think it their duty to represent all the facts to the Local Government Board. While I cannot help thinking it is possible that the hon. Gentleman has insisted a little too strongly upon this point, I may add that the Guardians appear to have passed a resolution, the words of which I have not taken down, but which come very much to this—that they had been dissolved on account of the exercise of their absolute right to vote for a certain resolution. Now, the result of this disagreement between the Guardians and their Chairman was that the Guardians repeatedly met, and met only to adjourn. They met on the 1st of July. That was the meeting at which the resolution was originally refused. The course adopted by the Carrick-on-Suir Board of Guardians was this. On the 1st of July, the Chairman refused to put the resolution, and on the 8th and 11th, and again on the 15th, the majority of the Guardians voted in favour of the adjournment of the meeting, and the meeting was accordingly adjourned. This having been brought to the notice of the Local Government Board, they requested their Inspector to go down and report upon the business in arrear in the Union, and on the 14th they wrote a letter to the Guardians, in which the Guardians were warned that if they persisted in neglecting to discharge their legitimate duties, the Local Government Board would be forced at once to take steps to place the management of the affairs of the Union in the hands of paid officers. The Inspector was present on that occasion, and he earnestly placed before the Guardians the consequences of their perseverance in the course they had entered upon. What they did they did with their eyes open. Now, the result of the ordinance which was passed by the Guardians was that the business of the Union was totally neglected; the duties of the Guardians were not discharged; no money was ordered to be issued by the Guardians for outdoor relief during the course of three weeks, and the cost of such relief amounted to £16 or £17 per week, and was advanced by the Clerk of the Union from his own resources. The advances made under the Seeds Act were left unpaid, the adoption of a new rate after the rate had been duly certified by the Clerk was postponed, the consideration of the reports from the
    810
    sanitary officers, the signing of cheques for outdoor relief, and all other cheques, were among some of the principal forms of business which fell into arrear; and the whole local business was at a standstill. Nobody can doubt after this that, through the fault of the Guardians, under whatever temptation they may have acted, the duties of the Carrick-on-Suir Union have not been duly and effectually discharged. The Board of Guardians having been distinctly warned that the appointment of paid Guardians would be the result of their failure to perform the ordinary business of the Union, the only alternative the Local Government Board had was to send down their Inspector to report, and, upon his remonstrances failing, to dismiss the Guardians, and appoint paid officers to attend to the local work of the district, that being the consequence which the Local Government Board had already pointed out.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Had they not the power of dismissing the Chairman?
    MR. TREVELYAN: No doubt, they could have done so; but that would have been a most high-handed and arbitrary proceeding, and would have savoured more of the region of politics. Some method or other must be devised to prevent bodies elected for the purpose of carrying on the non-contentious part of the business of the country from partaking of a political and partizan character. Different methods may be devised for that purpose. With regard to the Boards of Guardians, the method which has hitherto been devised, and which, on the whole, has been found to work fairly satisfactory, is that the Chairman should be intrusted with the power of saying what is, and what is not, fit business for a Board of Guardians to transact at their meetings. Of course, I know very well that in the course of past years, in innumerable Unions throughout the country, some Chairman of a Board of Guardians has occasionally taken a different view of his duty from others. I do not know whether it is the case that the Local Government Board actually invited this Board of Guardians in 1869 to petition in favour of the Land Act; but I have no doubt the hon. Member is right in saying that a great many resolutions trenching on the domain of politics have been passed by Boards of Guardians, and sent up to the Local Government Board, and I should regard

    811
    the Local Government Board as acting in a foolish and ill-advised manner, if they insisted on watching too closely the political character of the resolutions sent up to them. Since I have been Chief Secretary for Ireland, I have had from Boards of Guardians, and from other local bodies—occasionally from Grand Juries—resolutions which have not been to me extremely agreeable, because they trenched on politics, and from a point of view which was not sympathetic with my own. But I have not been too careful in looking into these matters, and I think that a rough-and-ready rule must be made; and that rough-and-ready rule—whether it is right or not, I am not here to say—is, in the case of a Boards of Guardians, for the Chairman to say what matters shall be brought on for discussion. I do not propose to enter upon the duties of the Chairman; but I can quite understand that he might say that this particular question was of too political a nature to be submitted to a Board of Guardians, and my opinion is, that if he laid that down as his view, it was the duty of the Board of Guardians to accept it. They were there to carry on the local business of the district, and the course they have taken, although I allow it was not taken without temptation, considering the constitution of the Board, was, I think, a thoroughly ill-advised course. But, whatever the conduct of the Guardians may have been, the duty of the Local Government Board was absolutely pointed out to them. They had no course whatever of any sort or kind open to them except that which they adopted. As for deposing the Chairman because he refused to put to the Guardians a resolution in favour of the amendment of the Land Act, that would have been a course extremely high-handed and extremely arbitrary. The course which the Local Government Board have adopted has been very unpleasant indeed. There was a great deal that was very disagreeable on both sides, and I think the whole case a very good illustration of the difficulties which beset any Government in Ireland which tries to do its duty by both parties. But whatever the sympathies of the Local Government Board may have been, its course of action could only run in one direction. It could not call on the Chairman to put a resolution which, on the whole, the Chairman was
    812
    right in not putting, although I am willing to allow that, if the resolution had been put, the Local Government Board would have regarded it with considerable equanimity. These being the facts of the case, if they were to perform their duty as a Local Government Board, they could only take the course they did take. They appointed two Vice Guardians to transact the business of the Union; and by the next election, in March, I earnestly hope the "grandfatherly" advice which the hon. Member for Sligo referred to, of the Local Government Board Inspector, will have been adopted, and that the Guardians may return to their duties, and may continue to discharge them in a manner that will enable the Local Government Board in future to regard them as a model Union.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland amounted, from first to last, to a statement that the President and Chairman of every Board of Guardians in Ireland could, if he liked, provoke a dissolution of that body. That was the sum and substance of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks; and, in other words, the Local Government Board had given a distinct premium and had held out a distinct incitement to the Chairmen, who were mostly drawn from the landed class, to crush out all popular and local life in the country. The Boards of Guardians in Ireland were one-half elected representatives of the ratepayers, while the other half was composed of members of the landlord class, who, as magistrates, were ex-officio Guardians. When the Poor Law Act was first introduced in the House of Commons, many years ago, there was nothing in it to give any ex-officio representation at all. It was in "another place" that the ex-officio representation was inserted in the Bill; so that the country was entirely indebted for that blessing to the House of Lords, who sent the Bill back to the House of Commons with a provision in favour of the ex-officio element. What had been the result? The landlords had the right to sit on the Boards of Guardians as magistrates; they had a vote also for the elected Guardians as ratepayers, and by the pressure which they were able, as landlords, to bring to bear upon the rest of the voters, under the present extraordinary system of voting which existed under the Poor Law, they were

    813
    generally able to return a majority of the Board. That being so, and these persons being wholly out of harmony with the feeling and wishes of the Irish people, the Local Government Board now came forward and said—"Let these gentleman have the power of stopping all the business, if they choose to be obstructive, and then if the elected Guardians still refuse to be dictated to, we will step in and suspend them, and substitute paid officials." A great amount of comment was made in that House 12 months ago, when the Speaker came forward and, by a coup d'état, suspended the Irish Members; and quite as great a comment was made when the Chairman of Committees, on a recent occasion, suspended a number of Members. But he (Mr. Healy) ventured to say that nothing so high-handed had ever been done, either by the Speaker or by the Chairman of Committees, as the action of the Local Government Board in the case of the Carrick-on-Suir Board of Guardians. There was no contention that the Guardians were not willing to discharge their duty, and transact the ordinary business of the Union. They were perfectly willing, on all these several occasions, to do their duty, and they protested at the time against being prevented by the Chairman from doing so. Therefore, there was no truth whatever in the allegation of the Local Government Board that the Carrick-on-Suir Guardians were unwilling to discharge their duty. They were perfectly willing to discharge their duty; but they were not willing to swallow the prescribed course the Chairman had laid out for them. They were quite ready to sign the cheques for outdoor relief, and to do all the things that were necessary in reference to making the rate and receiving the reports of the Sanitary Inspectors, which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had enumerated. Could the right hon. Gentleman say that the Guardians were unwilling to discharge the long list of duties which he had read out from that Table? They would only have been too happy to have done so; but the Chairman insisted that they should not. Standing with a pistol at their heads, he said in effect—"First eat the leek; first mark the M.S. as read; then you may go on with the ordinary business of the Union." Yet that was conduct which
    814
    received the approval of the Local Government Board. The Chief Secretary for Ireland could not escape blame in the matter. He was the President of the Board, and, as "soft words buttered no parsnips," he had no desire to be sympathetic with the right hon. Gentleman, when it was quite evident he was to blame. Who were the members of the Board? The President of the Local Government Board in Ireland was the Chief Secretary for Ireland for the time being; the Vice President was Henry Robinson, the Under Secretary; and the other members were Mr. Charles Croker King and Mr. George Morris. It would thus be seen that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Under Secretary constituted one-half of the Board; and, notwithstanding that he had been distinctly told that the elected Guardians were perfectly willing to discharge their duties, the right hon. Gentleman got up and defended the Board of which he was not only a member but the President, and in connection with which, when sitting at the Board, he would have the power of giving a casting vote. To say that he (Mr. Healy) sympathized with the right hon. Gentleman would be rather Platonic. How could any sympathy be expressed with the right hon. Gentleman, when it was open for him to bring in his own Under Secretary, at the next meeting of the Board, and tell Mr. Croker King and Mr. Morris that he would have no more of this kind of conduct? If the right hon. Gentleman took that course, there was no doubt that Mr. George Morris, Mr. Charles Croker King, and Mr. Henry Robinson would see their way to the adoption of the view of the Chief Secretary for Ireland and of the Lord Lieutenant. An example had already been set in a matter of this kind by the Local Government Board, who, finding that their action was mischievous, had agreed deliberately to set it aside. It was said that the Local Government Board had no desire to run counter to the wishes of the people. He (Mr. Healy) denied that in toto. What did they do in the case of Dr. Kenny? Because Dr. Kenny was arrested as a "suspect," and because he was acting as treasurer of the Land League, they instantly dismissed him from an important Government office he held. They all knew that when a row

    815
    was made about the matter in that House—[Mr. WARTON: Order, order!] —he knew perfectly well that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was not the only Member who was in the habit of making a row in the House.
    MR. WARTONrose to Order, and appealed to the Chairman whether the use of the word "row" was regular?
    The CHAIRMANmade no response.
    MR. HEALYcontinued: The Committee knew very well that after a commotion was made in that House about the dismissal of Dr. Kenny, the Local Government Board reinstated him in the position he had held, and, taking an unprecedented course, withdrew their sealed Order. But, nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland now came forward, and wished the Committee to presume that the course of conduct pursued by the Local Government Board in this case was something new. The fact was, that if the resolution which the Chairman refused to accept had been a resolution congratulating the Queen on her escape from the pistol of the fellow who attempted to shoot her down at Windsor, or a resolution deploring the unfortunate affair in the Phœnix Park, the Local Government Board—if the Chairman had acted as an obstructive—would readily have found some other way out of the difficulty. What was fully recognized in Ireland was, that whenever there was any desire on the part of the ruling power to make itself unpleasant and obnoxious to the people at large, it invariably did it, and the Local Government Board formed no exception to the rule. The Local Government Board, representing, as it did, the true spirit of British legislation, always endeavoured to make things as unpleasant as they could. They had heard last night that there was in Ireland, at the present moment, a spirit and desire to make things work as smoothly as possible; but now it was said that, come what might, the strict letter of the law must be obeyed. The law in Ireland was always to be obeyed, so long as it was oppressive and unpleasant to the people. Persons who were constantly crying out about the law, appeared to take great delight in making the law as unpleasant to the people as possible. His complaint against the Chief Secretary for Ireland
    816
    was this—If the right hon. Gentleman had had his heart in his business, as he seemed to say he had, it would have been a very small thing to tell the Local Government Board that what they had done was wrong. For his own part, if he (Mr. Healy) were a ratepayer of Carrick-on-Suir, as long as the Local Government Board sent down paid Guardians to distribute his money according to their own will, he would pay them no rates; and he trusted that the ratepayers of Carrick-on- Suir, so long as the Local Government Board sent down their paid instruments to spend their money, would give them no money to spend. He trusted that the people of Ireland would see that that was the only way in which they could hit back at the Government, and that, practically, they had the matter in their own hands. In the case of Carrick-on-Suir, the Local Government Board had sent down Vice Guardians. Then let the ratepayers refuse to pay the rates, and let the Local Government Board whistle for them. It would then be seen how soon the Local Government Board would be brought to their senses. If such a course were generally adopted, the Local Government Board would be much more cautious how they took a high-handed action of this character. It was quite true that they would have power to attempt to collect the rates by levying distress warrants; but if they seized the cattle of the farmers, nobody would buy them. Let the Local Government Board send in their rent-collectors upon the farms, and what happened in the late Land League agitation would occur again. Nobody would buy the cattle. Where the landlords had the pull in the Land League agitation was, that they could, evict the tenant; but, in this case, the Local Government Board could do nothing of the kind. They could only seize the property of the tenant; and, as nobody would buy it, they would not be one whit the better off.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I have been looking carefully through the Papers. It was a most unfortunate thing, certainly, that when an administrative question was in hand, certain facts were kept from the notice of the authorities, and that those facts are put forward for the first time in Parliament. Now, I do not for a moment question the aspect which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) has put upon the story. I think

    817
    it is very likely that it may have escaped the notice of the Guardians, who have failed to bring it under the notice of the Local Government Board. [Mr. SEXTON: No!] I attach great importance indeed to the transactions which took place at the Board on the 8th and 11th of July. There is no question whatever as to the nature of the transaction which took place on the 1st of July. The Local Government Board sent a letter to the Clerk of the Union of Carrick-on-Suir, and this letter, being addressed to the Clerk of the Union, would, I presume, come under the notice of any Guardian who chose to look at it. I will read a passage from that letter—
    "It appears that at the meeting on the day referred to—namely, the 1st instant—the Chairman having declined to put a question to the meeting which was wholly unconnected with the duties of the Board of Guardians, the majority of the Guardians present voted for the adjournment of the meeting, and that the meeting was accordingly adjourned, leaving much of the ordinary "business unfinished. The Guardians adopted a similar course on the 8th instant, the 11th instant, and again on the 15th instant, and the Local Government Board, having read reports from their Inspector, Mr. Hamilton, describing the business which had been neglected by reason of the repeated adjournments referred to," &c.
    Thus it will appear that the letter addressed to the Clerk of the Union distinctly states that the course adopted on the 8th, 11th, and 15th of July was the same as that which was taken on the 1st of July; and in the case of the 1st of July, the Chairman, having declined to put a question to the meeting, which was wholly unconnected with the duties of the Board of Guardians, the majority of the Guardians present voted for the adjournment of the meeting, and that the meeting was accordingly adjourned, leaving much of the ordinary business unfinished. The Guardians adopted a similar course on the 8th instant, the 11th instant, and again on the 15th instant, and the Local Government Board having read reports from their Inspector, Mr. Hamilton, describing the business which had been neglected, took action in the matter. I gather from the hon. Member that something else happened; but, nevertheless, the facts as reported by Mr. Hamilton, the Inspector, could only lead to the conclusion that additional provocation had been given by the Guardians, and that they had still insisted on the same course of proceeding,
    818
    to the neglect of the ordinary business of the Union. The Guardians, on receiving this letter from the Local Government Board, were open, I think, to lay their view of the case before the Local Government Board, especially when it distinctly differed from that contained in the letter of the Board in one important particular stated by the hon. Member. If this statement does not fully express what happened at the subsequent meetings, it is very important that, even at this eleventh hour, the Guardians should have an opportunity of placing their case before the Local Government Board.
    MR. SEXTONhoped he might be allowed to say a few words in order to make the case clear. There were four adjournments, and it was in respect to these four adjournments that the dismissal of the Board took place. On the 1st of July, when the Chairman refused to receive the resolution, a motion for adjournment was carried for the first time; but on the 8th, 11th, and 15th of July, the Clerk asked the Chairman to go on with the ordinary business, and then take the resolution at the close of the sitting, and the elected Guardians assented to that course; but on each of these three occasions the Chairman insisted on having the disputatious matter first disposed of. On one occasion, when this offer was refused by the Chairman, Mr. Hamilton, the Inspector of the Local Government Board, was himself present.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I hope we may be allowed now to make progress with the financial Business of the Committee. The case has now been brought down to a point which, I think, will enable the Local Government Board to arrive at a clear understanding of the whole merits of the question. It is quite evident that, in the minds of the Guardians who have communicated with the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), there was one important and cardinal point which has not been brought before the Local Government Board. I shall be glad to have that point brought under the notice of the Local Government Board, and that point is whether there was any unnecessary obstruction placed in the way of the transaction of public business at the three subsequent meetings of the Guardians on the part of the Chairman. Until that representation is before the

    819
    Local Government Board, and until the Local Government Board have inquired into it, I cannot regard this question as finally decided. I earnestly hope the hon. Member will communicate with the Guardians, and see if there is any further evidence in the case which can be placed before the Local Government Board, and which, I must say, after the reception of that letter by the Clerk of the Union, they neglected to place before the Local Government Board. I will see that the whole subject is inquired into by the Local Government Board.
    MR. REDMONDsaid, he had listened to the last observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland with great satisfaction, because there was a marked difference in a very important point between the information supplied to the Local Government Board and the information that day supplied to the Committee by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). His hon. Friend said that the Guardians were willing to go on with the ordinary routine business of the Union, but they were prevented from doing so by the Chairman. And it would appear that that fact had not yet been brought under the consideration of the Local Government Board. He (Mr. Redmond) thought that was a remarkable omission; but he did not think it was an omission on the part of the Guardians, because he found, in a report of the proceedings at one of the meetings immediately before the dissolution of the Board, that the fact was brought under the notice of Mr. Hamilton, the Inspector of the Local Government Board, sent down for the express purpose of inquiring into all the facts. Mr. Hamilton would seem to have neglected his duty entirely. Mr. Hamilton appeared, as his hon. Friend had stated, to have gone to the Board of Guardians and to have addressed some grandfatherly remarks to the Board; but when he went back to Dublin he did not report what the true facts of the case were at all. He (Mr. Redmond) would read an extract from a report of the proceedings, giving the remarks of Mr. Walsh, one of the Guardians, on the occasion when Mr. Hamilton was present. Mr. Walsh said—
    "The Clerk suggested this day week that the business of the Board—the legitimate business of relieving the poor in the house and giving outdoor relief where necessary, should be taken
    820
    up, and all other things postponed. That course was regularly proposed; but the Chairman would not accept the motion, or take the opinion of the Board on it. Again, to-day, instead of first taking up the most important business of relieving the poor, the Chairman decided to take up where we broke off the last day. What we broke off at was the letter of the Millstreet Board."
    The Board had been anxious on all occasions to fulfil their duties in regard to relieving the poor; but the Chairman had persistently obstructed them. The statement he had read was made in the presence of Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Hamilton was bound in duty to bring it under the notice of the Local Government Board. It contained the most important point in the whole matter. He (Mr. Redmond) freely admitted that if any Board of Guardians refused to fulfil its duties, it would devolve upon the Local Government Board to take measures to see that the duties were discharged; but in this case no such contention could be raised by the Local Government Board, because their own Inspector found that the Guardians were willing to fulfil their duty, but that they were obstructed and prevented from doing so by the action of the Chairman. He could quote other extracts to show the character of the proceedings; but he would only read one from the remarks made at a meeting held immediately after the dissolution of the Board, or rather at the meeting when the letter dissolving the Board was read. Mr. Walsh, the same gentleman he (Mr. Redmond) had quoted before, said, among other things—
    "We were the majority of the Board, and we came here to express and record the opinions of the ratepayers of the Union, and to do the business of the Board. That would not be done in spite of us. Even our Clerk asked our Chairman to do what we asked, to have the cheques signed, the relief list gone through, and the ordinary business transacted. The Chairman decided against us."
    These important facts were now brought for the first time to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman who was the President of the Local Government Board, and he (Mr. Redmond) earnestly appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to go into the matter afresh, and if what had been stated that day proved to be correct, he would then ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the decision the Local Government Board had arrived at. In the course the Local Government

    821
    Board had taken, they were undoubtedly establishing a most dangerous precedent in Ireland. The concluding remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would show the dangerous ground upon which the Local Government Board and the Government were standing, if they persisted in the course of action they had adopted. What would the immediate effect of their action be? It would be an incitement to the Chairmen of other Boards of Guardians to take a similar course, and the result would be the dissolution of many Boards of Guardians all over Ireland. Wherever there was a Board of Guardians presided over by a man of the same opinions and the same despotic inclination as the Chairman of the Carrick-on-Suir Board, whenever he endeavoured to prevent the Guardians from carrying an important resolution of this nature, and wherever the Guardians were men of independance and determination, the same conflict would inevitably arise, and the Local Government Board would be obliged to dissolve many Boards of Guardians throughout the country. Was that a prospect they were willing to face? Were they not aware of the danger alluded to by his hon. Friend—namely, the difficulty of collecting the rates under such circumstances? That difficulty would be exceedingly great, and it was a danger which they ought to avert by every means in their power. The resolution which the Chairman of the Carrick-on-Suir Board refused to allow to be put from the Chair was one which every hon. Member in connection with the Local Government Board would admit to be connected with the business of the Guardians. The business of the Guardians was to take care that they kept down the rates and relieved the poor of the district; and what could more tend to keep down the rates than to bring about a state of things in which evictions in the most cruel form would be stopped? At the time when these proceedings were taking place, cruel evictions were being carried out by a landlord who was absolutely an ex-officio member of the Board.
    MR. SEXTON: Even on the day of the dissolution of the Board.
    MR. REDMONDsaid, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not alluded in a more marked manner to the character
    822
    of that resolution. It was a resolution precisely similar to one which the Local Government Board itself had asked the Guardians throughout the country to pass, and the same kind of resolution had already been passed by many Boards of Guardians without any attempt being made to obstruct the Guardians in the performance of their legitimate functions. If the conduct of the Chairman of Carrick-on-Suir were supported and defended by the Government, the unfortunate result which had happened in this case was likely to be repeated. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to follow up the statement he had made by taking care that the decision of the Local Government Board in the matter was reconsidered. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Local Government Board had taken the only course open to them—namely, dissolving the Board of Guardians. He (Mr. Redmond) entirely denied that assertion. The right hon. Gentleman said it would have been a high-handed act to have dismissed the Chairman. He (Mr. Redmond) must say that he thought it was a much more high-handed act to dismiss the Guardians, who were not, as the Chairman was, ex-officio Guardians, but elected Guardians, returned by the ratepayers to dispense the rates to which they contributed. It was in the power of the Local Government Board to have taken a course of action in reference to the Chairman which would have obviated all these difficulties. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman that power was vested in the Chairman to say what business was to be transacted, and what not, at every meeting of the Board. But he (Mr. Redmond) understood that to be merely a rule of the Local Government Board, and he presumed it was a rule that could be abolished altogether. Therefore, there were two certain courses open to the Government other than the course they had followed in this case. He sincerely trusted that the Local Government Board would retreat from a position which was untenable in argument and fraught with danger to the best interests of the country.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was rather surprised at the form taken by the opposition to this Vote on the part of Irish Members below the Gangway. They had consumed a considerable amount of

    823
    time in discussing a question between the Local Government Board and the Board of Guardians at Carrick-on-Suir, while they said nothing whatever of other questions of real importance to the welfare of the Irish people that presented themselves in connection with the Vote. There was, to his mind, at least one subject that claimed the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government —namely, the reduction in the number of the Consulting Sanitary Officers, which, apparently, effected a saving to the country of £300. He (Mr. Warton) was, at a long distance, a humble follower of the late Lord Beaconsfield, who, in one of his speeches, parodied the language of the Preacher by the words—Sanitas sanitatum omnia sanitas. The noble Lord was bitterly reproached for that; but experience had shown the force of the phrase; and, bearing that in mind, he felt it his duty to call particular attention to the alteration made in the number of Consulting Sanitary Officers appointed under the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878. He regretted to find, by the detailed account given on page 165 of the Estimates, that there was a diminution in the amount charged for the salaries of these officers, the amount being £1,300, as compared with £1,600 paid last year. The difference arose from the fact that the number of Consulting Sanitary Officers was 17 less this year than it was for 1881–2. Now, he could not but regard this as a very serious matter, because it seemed to indicate that the Local Government Board in Ireland were more anxious to reduce the expenditure in connection with the Office than they were to secure the sanitary welfare of the people. He would not ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to pay attention to this matter, because he was well known to attend to everything in his Department with considerable zeal; but he would call his attention to the result of what appeared to be a very short-sighted and mistaken policy on the part of the Local Government Board in Ireland. If hon. Members would look at the items on page 165, they would find that the charge for the cost of medicines and medical and surgical appliances had been increased. These two circumstances, taken together, the diminution in the number of Consulting Sanitary Officers, and the increase
    824
    of cost of medicines, brought out the fact that more medicine was required in the workhouses in Ireland in proportion to the diminution in the number of officers. The Committee would find, by referring to Sub-head H., that whereas in 1881–2, £17,500 was sufficient for medicines and appliances, the sum required for 1882–3 was £18,500, the increase of £1,000 being due, in his opinion, to the foolish policy of the Department in cutting down the salaries and reducing the number of the officers in question, whose functions were so necessary to the prevention of disease in Ireland. There was another subject to which he asked the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board—namely, the facilities given for the prevention of small-pox. He observed that the supply of lymph had not increased, and he wished to know whether the same means were afforded in Ireland as in England for vaccination from the calf, because there was a large number of persons who had a strong prejudice against vaccination with lymph from the cow, which it would be well to overcome if possible? The right hon. Gentleman had done something in this direction, and there was now a certain small supply of calf lymph for England; but he (Mr. Warton) was most anxious that, in this respect, Ireland should be treated with equal justice. He again expressed his regret that notwithstanding the increase that had taken place in the population, there was a decrease in the number and salaries of so important a body of men as the consulting Sanitary Officers, coincident, as he had shown, with a heavy increase in the amount of medicines required at the Irish workhouses. It seemed to him that the questions raised by Members from Ireland upon this Vote were of minor importance as compared with those he had called attention to, and he sincerely hoped the latter would receive the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not think there was very much in the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), that because the number of Consulting Sanitary Officers had been reduced, there was an increase in the quantity of medicine required in the workhouses in Ireland. The comparatively small sums shown in the Es-

    825
    timates were given to the medical officers of the various Unions as consulting officers, their business being simply to receive the reports of the acting Sanitary Officers. That being so, he (Mr. Biggar) looked upon the salaries paid as being for no services rendered whatever; at any rate, he did not think the Consulting Sanitary Officers did any practical work, and, therefore, he saw no reason why their number and the salaries paid to them should be increased. Now, with regard to the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) as to the dissolution, by the Local Government Board, of the Board of Guardians at Carrick-on-Suir, he was much pleased that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed disposed to inquire further into the case. But he took the opportunity of remarking that the decision of the Local Government Board in the case of the Carrick-on-Suir Board of Guardians was very much on a par with their conduct in all cases that came before them. No matter what the subject might be, they always took the unpopular side of the question, which was as much as to say that the interests of the ratepayers in Ireland counted for nothing, and that the only parties entitled to be heard and considered with attention were the employés of the Board. He had received a letter from a gentleman in the county of Leitrim, which called attention to a question that, to his (Mr. Biggar's) knowledge, had been raised in many of the Unions in Ireland; it was a question that was certainly entitled to the impartial consideration of the Local Government Board, but which, as it seemed to him, they invariably decided in the wrong way. It related to the amount of poundage to be paid to the collectors of the rates. The fact was notorious that the collectors received a higher poundage for the collection of the Poor Rates than was allowed to the collectors of Income Tax, and the ratepayers suffered in consequence. Although the Boards of Guardians, as a rule, were disposed to fix a more moderate rate for the payment of the collectors, the Local Government Board invariably interfered, taking the part of the collectors as against the ratepayers, and making the Guardians pay a higher rate than they could get the work done for by others. On the 13th of July
    826
    last, a resolution was adopted by the majority of the Board of Guardians of the Union referred to in the letter of his correspondent, reducing the rate of poundage from 9d. to 6d., on the ground that some collectors had collected rates at 6d. in the pound at a time when collection was more difficult than it was at present. His correspondent went on to say that, formerly, the collection of the rates was open to public competition, and last year a number of proposals were sent in to the Board of Guardians by persons who offered to collect the rates at 6d. in the pound. These offers would have been entertained, but the Local Government Board overruled the Board of Guardians, and insisted upon a rack-rented and highly-taxed people paying 9d., instead of 6d., in the pound, for the collection of the rates. This afforded an excellent illustration of the action of the Local Government Board in Ireland, who, as a matter of fact, seemed on all occasions to select the very worst way of deciding questions that came before them. He would now bring before the Committee, very briefly, a circumstance which had occurred in the county of Cavan, and which afforded another example of the one-sided procedure of the Local Government Board. A friend of his had been a candidate at the last election of Poor Law Guardians. There was rather a close contest on the occasion, and his friend alleged, as he (Mr. Biggar) believed truly, that if the Returning Officer had decided fairly, he would have had a substantial majority. The decision, however, was against his friend, and in favour of his opponents, the matter turning very much on the question whether a certain person, formerly a landlord in the Union, could or could not claim to vote as landlord. His friend raised the point that the person who claimed to vote was not owner of the property, and was not entitled to vote in respect of it; but the Returning Officer decided against him, and the Local Government Board refused any inquiry into the circumstances. He did not think it was a legitimate proceeding on the part of the Local Government Board to decide a question against a person who challenged the conduct of a Returning Officer, upon the ex parte statement of the individual whose conduct was called in question. The fact was, the property in respect of which,

    827
    Mr. Lauder claimed to vote was in the hands of the Court of Chancery, and no one, as his friend had pointed out to the Returning Officer and the Local Government Board, could make any legal claim to it whatever.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member must confine himself to the question before the Committee. The Vote had already been discussed at considerable length, and in entering into these minute details it appeared to him that the hon. Member was going altogether beyond the sphere of the Vote.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had not the slightest desire to travel beyond the question before the Committee. He was discussing the conduct of the Local Government Board in Ireland, and, by way of illustration, he had laid before the Committee two cases. The first of these was where the Local Government Board had insisted that a Board of Guardians in the county of Leitrim should compel the ratepayers to pay 9d. in the pound for the collection of the rates, when they could get the work done for 6d. in the pound. The second case he had mentioned was that of his friend, who alleged that the Returning Officer had wrongly decided with regard to the vote of Mr. Lauder, at the election of Guardians, and in which case the Local Government Board had refused an inquiry, upon the ex parte statement of the Returning Officer. Now, he (Mr. Biggar) had certainly not occupied the time of the Committee for more than five minutes altogether, nor had he referred to more than two documents out of the number he held in his hand; and, therefore, he thought that the grievances, of which the cases he had cited were illustrations, and which were keenly felt by the ratepayers in Ireland, had not been unduly pressed. He repeated that the Local Government Board were constantly setting themselves in opposition to the interests of the ratepayers, as they had done in the counties of Leitrim and Cavan; and seeing that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had acknowledged that they seemed to be mistaken in the matter of the Board of Guardians at Carrick-on-Suir, he would ask him to institute a bonâ fide inquiry into the conduct of the Returning Officer, who decided to take a vote that ought not to have been given in respect of certain
    828
    property—the documents in his hand, of which he had not read a single line, showing that his friend ought to have had the benefit of the vote, and that he would, in consequence, have been returned as Guardian of the Poor for the division in question. In concluding his remarks, he begged to assure Her Majesty's Government that he should, whenever he had the opportunity, point out the misconduct of the Local Government Board, which seemed, on all occasions, to select the worst possible way of doing the business that came within its cognizance, and which seemed, moreover, to be the Department especially petted by the Chief Secretaries for Ireland.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he had also to complain that, whereas the Boards of Guardians had certain powers with reference to superannuation, under an old Act of Parliament, as he understood the Local Government Board had issued a Circular, directing them not to make use of that Act in future. This seemed to him a very unusual proceeding. The English Government, as a rule, were very fond of the law of Ireland—when it happened to be in their favour—but here it seemed there was a Circular being sent to the Guardians, telling them they were not to use the law. He asked whether Mr. Robinson had directed that Circular to be sent, and whether it was at his recommendation that a Bill, repealing the old Act and setting forth a new scale, was now introduced? He (Mr. Healy) thought, as there were already grants for one-half of the charges for medical officers, dispensaries, medicines, and sanitary officers, that it would not be too much for the Government to throw in one-half the superannuation charge. He trusted the Government would see their way to insisting that the Local Government Board should make use of the existing Act of Parliament, and not put forward measures that were not wanted. There was another point to which he desired to call attention—namely, the practice of the auditors of the Local Government Board to reduce the sums voted by the Boards of Guardians for the support of the families of "suspects" and evicted persons. The fact was that the families of the victims of the Government policy were left without the means of support, and when a man was arrested, it was usual for the Boards of Guardians to vote, say, £1 a-week for

    829
    the support of a family of eight or ten persons—not a very extravagant sum for a family of that size to live upon even in Ireland; but, as he had just remarked, the amount voted was always reduced by the auditors. He regarded that as a most unwarranted interference on the part of the auditors; and he trusted the Chief Secretary for Ireland would direct that when grants were made to the families of evicted tenants and imprisoned "suspects," the practice of disallowing the amounts should be discontinued, and that the auditors should be told that they had no other business with regard to this matter than to pass the sum voted. Moreover, he hoped that the new spirit which the right hon. Gentleman had infused into the treatment of Irish questions in that House would be transferred to Ireland during the Recess, and that the gentlemen who constituted the Local Government Board would be told that the best thing they could do with regard to local matters in Ireland was to let the constituted local bodies alone.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped the Government would not yield to the request of the hon. Member for Cavan. The hon. Member appealed to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to exercise what he termed the new spirit he had evinced with regard to Irish affairs, in order to prevent gentlemen charged with the responsible duty of auditing the accounts of the Guardians, meddling, as he called it, with the amounts voted by the Boards of Guardians to the families of persons who had been imprisoned as "suspects," or evicted from their holdings. In asking that, the hon. Member seemed to think it the duty of the auditors to pass items in the accounts of the Guardians, simply on the ground that the money was voted to persons who came within the category of persons under these conditions. He (Mr. J. Lowther) had some experience of the manner in which the affairs of the Local Boards of Guardians in Ireland were conducted, and he thought it right that the Committee should see that there was a distinction, and that a very marked one, to be drawn between such Boards in England and Ireland. In England the Boards of Guardians considered it incumbent on them to carry out their duties in conformity with the spirit as well as the
    830
    letter of the law; but, in Ireland, the spirit of the law appeared by many of the Boards of Guardians to be ostentatiously set at naught. They made allowances of an exaggerated character—although £1 a-week might not seem a large amount—to persons who came under the categories named; and although the Guardians voted the money, it must be remembered that what they spent came out of the pockets of the ratepayers. The position taken by the hon. Member for Cavan was that the Local Government Board were not right in placing a check upon the liberality of these Boards; but he (Mr. J. Lowther) trusted the Committee would not allow that doctrine to pass unchallenged. Boards of Guardians in Ireland very frequently constituted themselves the exponents of the views of a certain section of the community, and, as in the present case, made extravagant allowances in favour of persons who had placed themselves in antagonism to the law of the land. One effect of the proposal of the hon. Member would be that the constituencies, who, he believed, were not always in harmony with the Local Boards, would, by their Representatives in that House, call the Government to account for allowing the ratepayers' money to be spent in the manner described. Under these circumstances, he trusted the suggestion of the hon. Member would not be entertained.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £28,031, 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 Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, a year ago he moved for a Return with regard to the loans granted for the Relief of Distress in Ireland. He wished to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he could inform the Committee the amount of the balance which remained unapplied for in respect of those loans; whether there was a time appointed at which the applications from persons who desired to obtain loans at 1 per cent interest for improvements in Ireland must cease;

    831
    and, again, if that time had expired, whether there had not also been a time fixed at which no further applications would be entertained for advances in respect of loans which had been sanctioned under the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Acts? Further, if such time had been fixed, he would like to know whether it had expired, and whether it would not be a fair matter for consideration by the authorities, if no such period had been fixed, to name a date after which no further advances would be made? He thought there would be a great advantage in this, because if there should be a substantial surplus remaining unapplied for after the period had expired for making application for advances, it could be carried forward for the purposes of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, which had recently passed the House.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, at the expiration of the time fixed by the Act for applying for advances, there was no balance over that could be available for the purpose indicated by the hon. Member.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had misapprehended his meaning. No doubt, there was a time fixed beyond which no applications for loans under the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act were to be made. But that was not his point. Advances in respect of loans already sanctioned were made from time to time by the Local Government Board in Ireland; but he had reason to suppose that applications had not been sent in for anything like the whole amount of the loans sanctioned. He believed there was a considerable sum outstanding in respect of loans sanctioned under the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act; and, in the event of that being the case, he suggested that it would be well for the Local Government Board in Ireland to consider the expediency, under existing circumstances, of fixing a time beyond which no future applications in respect of the loans already sanctioned should be made, and then there would be a substantial balance which could be applied for the purpose of the Arrears of Rent Bill.
    COLONEL NOLANasked whether the works on the Shannon were now in working order? He knew they were far advanced towards completion, and
    832
    believed they were promised to be in working order at the end of July.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he understood the works referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) would be completed next month.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to what appeared to be a number of discrepancies in calculating the charges for the salaries of certain officials in the Department of Public Works (Ireland). Hon. Members would observe, on page 167 of the Estimates, that the salaries of the first-class bookkeepers and clerks commenced at £320, and rose with an annual increment of £20 to a maximum of £500. Now, whether the number of these officials was four or five, it was impossible by any method of calculation to arrive with a yearly increment of £20 at the sum of £2,448, charged as the total amount of their salaries for the year 1882–3. Again, in the architect's branch, there were two draftsmen, employed at a minimum salary of £210, with an annual increase of £10, rising to a maximum of £250 a-year; but by no arithmetical process that he was acquainted with would these conditions give the sum of £467, charged as the total salaries of these gentlemen for the current financial year. The same observation applied to the charge of £237 for a second set of draftsmen, whose salaries began at £80, and rose with an annual increment of £15 to £200—indeed, this page of the Estimates was full of discrepancies of the kind, which he would briefly point out as illustrative of the imperfect manner in which the accounts were presented to Parliament. Referring still to the architect's branch, there was £271 charged for a furniture clerk, whose salary commenced at £200; annual increment, £10; maximum,£300; and£2,295 charged for nine clerks of the works— including an allowance of £20 per annum to six for an office—with salaries beginning at £150; annual increment, £10; maximum, £2,295. In the engineer's branch, there was a charge of £556 for an assistant engineer, with a minimum salary of £400; annual incre-ment,£20; maximum, £600. And finally, in the solicitor's branch, there was a clerk at £120 commencing salary; annual increment, £10; maximum, £200; for whom the sum of £179 was charged for

    833
    the current year. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had the reputation of being a wonderful calculator; and he would, perhaps, be able to explain to the Committee the process by which those extraordinary arithmetical results had been arrived at.
    MR. COURTNEYthought, before assuming that the accounts were incorrect, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) might have considered the possibility of some of the officials he had referred to not being paid salary at the same rate for a whole year.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had anticipated that defence on the part of the hon. Gentleman; and he now asked him whether he would state that the apparent discrepancy was caused in the way he had indicated? He would, of course, accept the hon. Gentleman's answer in the affirmative; at the same time, he should feel that the entries were imperfect, inasmuch as no time short of a year was stated in the Estimate.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it was with a considerable amount of reluctance that he ever offered objection to a Vote on Account of any Department of the Civil Service. Having been himself in the Civil Service for a number of years, his sympathies were very strongly enlisted in the interest of the clerks in the Service; and although he was a Member of the House of Commons, he considered himself very little more than an ex-War Office clerk. He repeated that it was with reluctance that he brought forward any charge against a Civil Service Department; but when he considered the amount of influence which the Vote under consideration had upon the interests of Ireland, when he considered how the Office of Public Works had for years been recognized as little else than a Department to obstruct and prevent the development of the interests of Ireland, he felt, as an Irish Member, that he was bound to offer some protest against the expenditure of public money in connection with the Office of Public Works. The Board of Public Works in Ireland had influences of the most varied and ramified type. There was scarcely any Department in which the Board of Works was not concerned. There was no Department in which the public interests of Ireland could be developed by the aid of the central Administration which the Office of Works did not affect,
    834
    and there was no single branch of those interests in which the paralyzing influence of that Office might not be distinctly traced. In endeavouring to appreciate the reasonableness of the Vote now submitted to the consideration of the Committee, he had carefully perused the records of the Office of Public Works for the last three years; and in the last volume he found a very long and detailed account of a multiplicity of works, which any person, cursorily perusing, would take as a proof of the great energy and immense public usefulness of the Department. It would appear that in almost every branch of the Administration this Board had some important duties to discharge; and the Report was replete with figures running into hundreds of thousands, and even millions of pounds, that would induce the belief that the Office of Works in Ireland was distributing public money in aid of the development of the resources of the country to a tremendous extent. But when one examined a little further and more closely into the root of the matter, he found that all the figures and references to Acts of Parliament and important public works in reality related to a period commencing in 1841, or, at any rate, as far back as the Famine year; and that this Department, which issued annually a cumbrous Report, had very little to show in the shape of present work. He had endeavoured, as far as he was able, having some knowledge of Departmental duties, derived not only from his experience in the War Office, but from his experience when in charge of an important office in Ireland, to estimate the amount of work actually thrown upon the Office of Public Works, and, allowing for the amount of correspondence necessarily involved, also to estimate the strength of the staff necessary for carrying out the work. With regard to the Secretary's Office, he should have been happy to undertake the charge of the duties in that branch, making a liberal allowance for all the requirements of the Office, with half-a-dozen intelligent men. But hon. Members would see that in the Secretary's Office, including the Chairman and Commissioners, there were no less than 17 persons employed. Then there was the accounts' branch, which had a staff of 18 men. It was impossible to estimate the work thrown on the architect's branch;

    835
    it would be, at any rate, of very considerable dimensions. The engineer's branch was smaller than the architect's; but he believed it did its work thoroughly well—that was to say, as far as the person in charge could do it. The solicitor's office had, for 1882, a staff of four men, with messengers and others. He had no doubt that all the branches named in the Estimate were as much over-manned as the Secretary's branch, which he had more particularly alluded to. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland that, during the Recess, if he could find it within his province to make inquiries with regard to an important matter of this kind, he should investigate the working of the Office of Public Works in Ireland, and that if he considered in so doing he would be trespassing on the province of the Treasury, he should endeavour to institute such a Departmental investigation as would cause a thorough overhauling of this large establishment. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had no hesitation in saying that a capable Administrator, taking the work in hand, would be able, within 12 months, to reduce the staff of the Public Works Office in Ireland by at least 30 per cent; and he defied any man to show him, by the published Report of the Office, how there could possibly be work for more than six intelligent men in the Secretary's branch, where, according to the Estimate, 17 persons were employed. The Irish people, in every portion of the country, felt that the Public Works Office was nothing more or less than a kind of obstructive breakwater of the Treasury, established in Ireland, by which the distribution of public money in aid of local funds was prevented against the will of Parliament, and in spite of the Votes of that House. Now, he proposed to move a reduction of the Vote, in respect of the salaries of the Chairman and the Secretary. The salary of the former was £1,500, and of the latter £800, or a total of £2,300 taken together; but, inasmuch as a number of Votes on Account had been taken, he proposed to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,100 only. The reason why he selected these items for the purpose of reduction was this. Between four and five years ago a Committee was appointed, the Members of which were
    836
    Viscount Crichton, Mr. Mitchell Henry, Mr. Kavanagh, Mr. Fremantle, and Mr. Murray, with Mr. Hamilton as Secretary. Amongst other recommendations, after making such a Report as probably was never issued in respect of any Public Department in England, Scotland, or Ireland, the Committee recommended the removal from office of the present Chairman and the present Secretary. The Report, which was worthy of citation before the Committee, contained passages to the effect that it would not be fair to impose fresh or more important duties on an officer, who, like the present Secretary, had been in the Public Service for more than. 40 years. That was signed as far back as Tune, 1878; and the gentleman referred to had, therefore, at the present time been in the Public Service between 40 and 45 years. The Report went on to express the opinion that, after so long a period of service, the Secretary was entitled to retire on a pension, and the Committee recommended that he should be replaced by an officer; and he asked the particular attention of the Committee to the following words:—"Who would be able to relieve the Board of some of their less important duties." This meant that, at the time the inquiry took place, five years ago, the present Secretary was perfectly useless, and absolutely beyond work; that he was incapable of relieving the Board, even of the least important of their duties. The present Board, again, did no work; according to the Report they were not fit for the work they had to do, and, as had been already shown, the Secretary was so old and so incapable of office work, that he could afford them no assistance whatever; and his retirement had been recommended, for that reason, so far back as the year 1878. The reason stated in the Report for this arrangement was, that it would give the Board more time to devote to inspection, and enable them to attend to some of the more important business which appeared at that time to be left too much to the subordinate officers of the Board. The Committee would readily understand that, when duties, which properly fell to the heads of Departments, were delegated to subordinates without responsibility for their performance, those duties, in all probability, were not properly discharged. As a matter of fact

    837
    and notoriety, they were not discharged at all; and so, probably owing to the unfitness of the Secretary and Board to do their own work, the Public Works Office in Ireland, which was intended to be an efficient and active Public Department, had fallen into a state of permanent paralysis, and the great interests of the country, which it was intended to promote by their action, remained undeveloped and obstructed. The Committee said, with regard to the present Board, that they expected the recommendation already made would more effectually secure to the public the advantages intended by the Legislature, which was to say that the Committee recognized the fact that the advantages intended by Parliament to be given to the people were not secured to them by the existing arrangement, and that that, to a great extent, was owing to the inefficiency of the leading members of the Staff. The Committee, therefore, expressed their belief that the adoption of the recommendation in their Report would, "in a great measure, remedy the defects of the administration of the Board." Without going over the whole of the ground covered by the Committee, he would remind hon. Members that the Report was replete with references to the leading idea—that the chief reason why all the business under the control of the Public Works Office in Ireland was in a hopeless state of confusion and arrears was the inefficiency of those at the head of the Department. The Committee expressed their conviction that the head of this important Department should possess unusual administrative abilities; that he should command the entire confidence of the public and his subordinates by a vigorous and comprehensive grasp of the subjects with which he was called upon to deal, and that he should be able, both in his recommendations to the Treasury and in his communications with the public, to enforce his views with authority. That was the idea which the Committee had of an efficient head of the Department; but they added that nothing could be further from their intention than to depreciate the merits of the present holder of the office, or to detract from the value of his long and distinguished public services. It was certainly not for him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to depreciate the value of services that, be-
    838
    fore he was born, possibly, might have been of the most signal character. The Report stated that nothing could exceed the zeal with which the holder of the office had applied himself to the work, or the conscientious industry he had brought to bear upon it; it was possible, however, that after so long a period of services rendered, and in spite of a strong constitution, he might feel unequal to the strain which future responsibility would entail, and, consequently, be unable to do full justice, either to himself or the Department; and, if so, the Committee added—
    "While regretting the loss of his great experience, we think he should be afforded an opportunity of retiring, and that a State pension should he secured to him."
    He questioned if there was ever a public servant condemned by a Report in more complimentary terms. Such was the view of the Committee; but, notwithstanding their recommendation, the "creeping palsy" which had come over the Public Works Office in Ireland had been allowed to continue to the detriment of the public interest. As it was right to place the whole case before the Committee, he should mention that one of the Committee dissented from the recommendations of his Colleagues —namely, Viscount Crichton—who said he regretted he was unable to agree in the recommendation contained in Paragraph 244, which he could not but regard as equivalent to an intimation that the retirement of the Chairman was desirable; in other words, four out of five Members of the Committee considered it desirable that the Chairman should be retired. But Viscount Crichton added that he had no hesitation to join in the censure passed on the Board, in certain respects, and for which, in his capacity, the Chairman must be regarded as responsible; but, on the whole of the evidence submitted, he could not see sufficient ground to warrant any reform in his management of the business of the Board, and he would be glad if the Chairman's great acquaintance with the duties of the office could be preserved to the public in the future. Nothing could be more creditable to the noble Viscount than these expressions; but, if anyone weighed the language, he ventured to think they would perceive that the noble Viscount recognized, as the other Members of the Committee had done, that it

    839
    was impossible to leave the Board as it was then constituted, and that if the Chairman was to be continued in office, it was absolutely necessary to make some arrangement by which his inefficiency might be counteracted—that was to say, that some person should be associated with him. But no one had ever been associated with the Chairman, and since that time to this the Board had been going from bad to worse; and anyone who considered the Report of the Irish Board of Works would see that there was absolutely nothing to show in return for the tremendous expense which Parliament was now called upon to sanction. He maintained that the whole Office was over-manned, and that the staff for half the year had practically nothing to do, for there was in no one single branch of the Department an amount of work sufficient to keep the men in it fully employed during any single month of the year. It was a matter of notoriety in Dublin that the staff of the Office of Public Works, when the Parliamentary Session was ended, breathed more freely, and congratulated each other upon the fact that they had been allowed another lease of life for 12 months. That being the fact, well known as it was in certain circles in Dublin, he thought it ought to be made known to the Committee. There was another point on which he wished to dwell briefly before he sat down, and that was the position of the architect to the Board. Some time ago he had addressed a Question to the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the position of this officer, who, it appeared, was a member of the directorate of a building society in Dublin; and it was perfectly well known that other building societies were deterred from making applications for advances to the Board of Works, as they were entitled to do under certain Acts of Parliament, by the knowledge of the fact that the architect of the Board, who was a member of a rival building society, used all his influence to prevent their getting the advances, which otherwise they had reasonable grounds to expect would be granted. It was but a few days ago that he received a letter from a person in Dublin, to the effect that the writer happened to be a member of a building society in Dublin, and that the idea had occurred to him that if he could effect a loan through the Board of Works it would be a great
    840
    boon. But the writer added that, on consideration, he found he should be giving himself an amount of unnecessary trouble by making any application to the Board of Works, seeing that the architect of the Board held a prominent position as Chairman in a different building society to that which he belonged to. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) asked if it were a desirable thing that a member of a public office should be allowed to act as Chairman or member of a building society, competing for public assistance with other building societies, which did not enjoy the same official privileges. In reply to the Question he had asked no satisfactory answer was given. However, he did not propose to object to the salary of the architect for the current year; but he trusted that the good feeling and proper official sense of the Secretary to the Treasury would cause him to see that it was incumbent on the Treasury to insist that the architect to the Public Works Office in Ireland should retire from so equivocal a position. With regard to the Secretary and the Chairman, he did not see how, after the words in the Report of the Committee, which inquired into the management of the Department, it was possible to retain those two officers; and he therefore begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,100, which, taking into account the sums already voted, would about represent the balance of the salaries of the officers in question.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £26,931, 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 Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    MR. BLAKEsaid, he concurred in nearly everything his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had said, and he felt some delicacy in speaking about Public Departments in Ireland, because he had been for some time connected with one of them. He would, therefore, rather not say anything about them; but, agreeing that there was a very great change called for in regard to the Board of Works in Ireland, and having considerable knowledge of that Board, he felt he must say something upon the subject. He could, however, assure the

    841
    Chief Secretary for Ireland that he spoke with no ill-feeling towards the members of that Board, for he was on very good terms with them. He (Mr. Blake) had been in the Fisheries Department, and it was the object of that Department to show that the loans would be paid; but, owing to the fault of the Board of Works, those loans which could have been collected were not collected and still remained out, and probably would remain out. In his advocacy of an extension of these loans, he (Mr. Blake) had drawn attention to the manner in which the loans had been repaid by the fishermen. In any change in the Board of Works, unquestionably the Chairman and the Secretary must go, because they had been there so long that the time had come when they might be put on retirement; but he thought his hon. Friend, from not being entirely acquainted with the facts, was rather hard on the Secretary. He, like many other secretaries, had been made the scapegoat for the failings of many of the members of the Board. He had been a most efficient executive officer; it was his duty to carry out the orders given to him, and in that respect no charges could be brought against him. The deficiencies of the Board were not due to him, but to those in higher positions. He had been, and still was, a very efficient officer. The hon. Member spoke of the Department being overmanned. That was so in certain particulars; but the Department was undermanned in other respects—in the Engineer's Department, for instance. His (Mr. Blake's) reason for thinking that that Department was under-manned was that there was great delay in the construction of piers and in inspection. He agreed with his hon. Friend's observations respecting the Architect's Department; and he hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was Chief Commissioner of Public Works in Ireland, would be able to pay more attention to that subject. It seemed to him that it was very much to be regretted that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or some other officer, was not an ex-officio member of other Public Departments in Ireland; for it would conduce greatly to their efficiency if someone in the Chief Secretary's Department attended the meetings of the Boards. Certainly, a visit from an independent officer of the Go-
    842
    vernment to the Board of Works would be also very valuable. For a long time a re-casting of the Board of Works had been promised, and nothing was more strongly wanted and; he hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had promised to look after the Asylums Board and Fisheries Board, would promise to carry his very practical mind into the Board of Works, and see what was required there. So far as he (Mr. Blake) was concerned, if a Motion was brought forward for reforming that Board, he should give it his determined assistance.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDannounced that, as his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) could not answer his question, he would, on Thursday next, ask whether the total amount of loans sanctioned under the Distress Acts of 1880 had been advanced; and, if not, what was the amount of the balances yet unclaimed?
    MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, he could not state how much had been repaid; but the amount sanctioned to be advanced was about £1,400,000, and he believed that nearly the whole had been advanced. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), he did not think the Board of Works in Ireland would be very gratified by the special sympathy expressed for them by the hon. Member. He (Mr. Courtney) himself took great interest in the Public Works Department in Ireland, and, from the limited experience he had had of them by communications with the officers of the Board, he felt compelled to attribute the unpopularity of the Board to their unreadiness to lend money. He frankly admitted that this Department was not perfect; but he was afraid there were few Departments that were perfect. If an accusation could be sustained that the Department was over-manned, he was afraid there were many Departments in England against which the same accusation could be made. But he did not admit, after an examination of the work done by that Department, which was of an extensive character, that the Department was as over-manned as the hon. Member said. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) had, in one way, put the matter directly in the contrary, and said some of the Departments were under-manned.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I admitted that the Engineer's Department was under-manned.
    MR. COURTNEYthought the hon. Member had forgotten what he (Mr. Courtney) had told him in reply to one or two Questions; that that recommendation of the Committee had not been overlooked; but the great quantity of new work which was thrown on the Board last year—which required a good deal of attention and preparation—made it impossible to undertake a task analogous to swopping horses in the middle of the stream. If that had been done, a great deal of the present work could not have been transacted. From seeing what the Department had done, and was doing, he was convinced that the Department had been most faithful and diligent in carrying out the intentions of Parliament; and the apparent inadequacy of the result was not due to the fault of the Department, but, to a great extent, to the extreme difficulty of dealing with persons who were unable, either through ignorance or a want of knowledge of business, to put themselves into practical relations with the Department. But the difficulties, such as they were, had been overcome, and the Return which he had presented to the House a few days ago, and which was not yet in general circulation, would show that the Department was in a state of great activity in relation to the particular business thrown upon them last year, and that, at all events, the Department was not in that state of decrepitude which the hon. Member for Queen's County had described. The number of applications up to July 31 was 485; of these 160 were inadmissible—that was to say, they were made by persons who were so unacquainted with the conditions prescribed by Parliament that the applications could not be admitted. Of the remainder, 41 were transferred under the Act 10 & 11 Vict., and were most of them sanctioned; and of the rest 292 had been provisionally entertained, and 152 had been sanctioned by the Treasury, the amount applied for being £27,710; 140 were still under inquiry, and of those 98 were not yet ripe for consideration. There had not been a sufficient number of days necessary for decision, and of the remaining 42 which, in point of time were ripe for consideration, 17
    844
    were delayed by the neglect of the applicants to comply with the conditions, so that progress could not be made; 21, which had been retarded by the applicants, were now progressing; and 4 were held over, at the wish of the applicants themselves. Thus the Returns, so far as the interests of the applicants were concerned, reflected the greatest credit on the Department. If hon. Members had the figures before them, they would see that, whatever the paucity of applications granted, that was not due to the neglect of the Department, but to the inherent difficulty of the task, which had been carried out with more despatch than could have been expected.
    Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked how many applications had been granted up to the 31st of March this year?
    MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, that, up to March 31, there was considerable difficulty in putting the machinery in motion; but, at all events, there was the result that, on the 31st of July, 150 applications had been granted, involving a sum of £27,710, under the 31st section.
    MR. SEXTON: There were two classes of loans under the section.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he understood that the 31st section dealt with loans to occupiers. With respect to the Chairman and Secretary, the hon. Member for Queen's County, no doubt, did quote things that were said of the Chairman and Secretary; but he (Mr. Courtney) was afraid those quotations were made with a good deal of colour of running comment which gave them a different aspect.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I must object. I read the ipsissima verba.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought the hon. Member commented on the quotations; but he admitted that the hon. Member quoted textually from the Report. But he commented on the quotations he made, putting in his own words so as to convey, intentionally or not, a different impression from that given by the Members of the Committee. The recommendations of the Committee, to whatever extent they might go, and however they might be qualified with respect to the Chairman and Secretary, had not been neglected or overlooked, and would not be overlooked; but no action could possibly have been taken in

    845
    recasting or reorganizing the office during the recent critical times.
    MR. HEALYasked, whether it would be believed that, for the 10 months up to May 31st, the Department had spent £2,856 of the ratepayers' money, and had not made one single advance? Yet the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had the face to get up and say that the Department was in an efficient condition. How was the Board induced to do anything? Owing to a series of Questions in the House, Colonel M'Kerlie, the spider of the Board of Works, came out of his web, and then the Board made some advances. So long as Parliament was sitting the Board were in a state of trepidation; but when Parliament was not sitting they were free, and Colonel M'Kerlie would execute a pas seul. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) said the complaints had not been overlooked or neglected; but, if that was so, how was it that four years had passed since this Report was made in 1878, and it had never been acted upon? The Report, which practically recommended that Colonel M'Kerlie should be sent about his business, remained a dead letter, and Colonel M'Kerlie remained at the head of the Board of Works. If a special pension would induce him to withdraw, he (Mr. Healy) would give him 10 times his salary, as he thought that would be well spent; and if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) would put on the Estimates such an amount for that purpose, he ventured to think the Irish Members would cheerfully vote the money to get Colonel M'Kerlie out of office. The 31st section was the most important section of the Land Act; and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) took great credit to himself for the fact that, of 360 applications which had been made, 154 had been sanctioned by the Treasury. But would the hon. Gentleman explain how it was that the Board had framed a rule which made it impossible for the 500,000 of the 600,000 Irish tenants to take advantage of the section. Parliament sweltered over the Land Act of last year, and fully debated this 31st section, and then Colonel M'Kerlie framed this rule to prevent the 500,000 of the 600,000 tenants taking advantage of the section. Colonel M'Kerlie, the spider of the Board of Works, threw his webs around the administration of the Act, and de-
    846
    barred 500,000 of 600,000 occupiers of the soil taking advantage of it; and the public were further informed that four years ago it was recommended that Colonel M'Kerlie should be sent to his place, wherever that might be, upon a special pension in order to get rid of him. That recommendation had, however, never been acted upon, but was locked up by Colonel M'Kerlie in his desk. This House passed the Land Act, the 31st section of which ordained that certain occupiers were to get loans; but by making a rule as to £100, amounting to £120 in valuation, the Board of Works absolutely nullified the operation of that Act, and prevented 500,000 tenants taking advantage of the 31st section. Colonel M'Kerlie had made a rule—[Mr. COURTNEY: The Treasury.] Well, under, he presumed, the influence of Colonel M'Kerlie. He had made some suggestion, he (Mr. Healy) supposed, and after the Act had been passed with so much difficulty he deprived these 500,000 tenants of the benefits of the Act. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] The Prime Minister did not give assent to that. Who, then, was responsible? Whoever was responsible, it was time some period should be put to action of this sort. Five-sixths of the occupiers were under £20 valuation. He hoped the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury would do something to get some security for small holders of land—say, those under £4 valuation. It was not an easy thing to get security for money, but there was a wide margin between £4 and £20 valuation; and he (Mr. Healy) thought the Treasury might fairly be asked to- revise this rule, so as to enable holders of £8 or £10 valuation to get security. It might happen that the holder of even a £4 holding would be able to give collateral security; and, therefore, a hard-and-fast rule that in no case should an application be entertained unless the applicant's holding was of a certain value—say, £15 and upwards—would certainly lead to abuse. The Treasury made this hard-and-fast rule, and the result was that only 152 applications had been sanctioned by the Treasury. The estimate of the expenses was no less than £5,000 for 12 months. The estimate should bear some proportion to the amount advanced. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury

    847
    had said that the total sum advanced was £27,710. The cost of making these advances was £5,000, which was certainly too great a proportion to the sum advanced. He trusted that although they had hitherto appealed in vain for these periodical Returns they would have them in the future. The months of June and July had passed, and, except for the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) that night, the Committee were in the dark as to what the Board of Works were doing. It would be a stimulus to Colonel M'Kerlie if what the Board of Works were doing was made known.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wanted to say one word as to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), who, he was sorry, had entered into this difficult question. It would be most unjust to lay on that very valuable public servant, Colonel M'Kerlie, whose tenure of office had been a very distinguished one, the responsibility for these rules. It was the Treasury which was responsible for the rules, though he was not able to say whether Colonel M'Kerlie had made suggestions on the subject. The matter was settled by the Treasury, and the Treasury was responsible for the Vote as it stood. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy) had said 500,000 tenants had been entirely shut out from the benefits of the Land Act. [Mr. HEALY: The 31st section!] He assured the hon. Gentleman that that section of the Act was a very large and extraordinary extension of the principles upon which Parliament had hitherto acted, and it was an extension which required to be managed with a good deal of discretion. He did not say that a Parliamentary rule was an inflexible one; but it was very difficult to determine how far the Executive Government might be justified in entering into relations of debtor and creditor with all the small tenants in Ireland for the purpose of giving them advances for the cultivation of their holdings. The hon. Member must remember that the expenses of small loans were very heavy indeed to the Government, and it was a serious matter to consider whether public money could be employed in granting these very small sums, and whether the great peculiarities of the condition of the Irish farmer, which had led Parliament to go
    848
    so far justifiably and properly and wisely in meeting what seemed the essential quality of condition — whether those peculiarities were such as to warrant proceeding to such bounds as the hon. Member might wish with regard to lending Government aid to single holders of farms, and especially very small ones, for the purpose of enabling them to improve the cultivation of their farms. He did not think the subject could be dealt with wholesale, or that it could be dealt with largely on the Vote for the Board of Works in Ireland. It was not the Board of Works that was really chargeable. The question involved was one of policy, and it was an extremely difficult one. He was by no means desirous of excluding further discussion on the subject; but caution must be observed on the part of the Treasury.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that, in order to justify the case which had been made from the Irish Benches against Colonel M'Kerlie, it was not at all necessary to deny the value of his public services in the past. The Prime Minister had spoken of the tenure of office of Colonel M'Kerlie; and he (Mr. Sexton) supposed that the right hon. Gentleman, who had had a long and somewhat close relation with Colonel M'Kerlie, might have had an opportunity of discovering faculties in that gentleman which had not been apparent to the general public. All that Irish Members complained of was that Colonel M'Kerlie's tenure of office had been exceedingly prolonged. There were very few who could compete with the Prime Minister in his period of public service; but Colonel M'Kerlie had been so long in the Public Service that it would be well if he were out of office. The Irish Members did not say this on their own motion, for a Departmental Committee, in language which was clear and unmistakable, indicated that the time had come when Colonel M'Kerlie should retire. His hon. Friend (Mr. Healy), when he said that the rules issued by the Treasury had shut out five-sixths of the Irish farmers from the benefits of the Land Act, was not dealing with the Land Act as a whole, as the Prime Minister seemed to imagine, but with the 31st section of the Act. When the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) was speaking a short time ago, he (Mr. Sexton) asked him whether the loans made under the 31st section of the Land

    849
    Act had been made to occupiers or not. He showed that the 31st section of the Act authorized two kinds of loans to he made—namely, loans for the reclamation of land, and loans for agricultural improvements. There was no limitation in the section providing that the loans should not be made to occupiers.
    MR. COURTNEY: The advances have been made to occupiers solely.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that after a year's operation of the Act they found that only 150 advances had been made. His hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) unintentionally overstated the efficiency of the action of the Board of Works in reference to this section. If he understood his hon. Friend properly, the sum of £27,000 was the amount sanctioned to be advanced. It would have been interesting to know how much of the £27,000 had actually passed from the form of grants on paper to the form of cash advances to occupiers. For expenses, the estimate was—For Land Act Loans 1881, Section 31, £5,000; Inspection under Land Improvement Act, £3,500—altogether the expenses amounted to £10,000. If the hon. Gentleman would tell them how much of the £27,000 had been paid over, the Committee might arrive at the absurd result that the cost of the Department in distributing loans had been as large as the amount advanced. He considered that the 31st section, if vigorously worked, would have rendered very satisfactory results, results certainly less open to criticism than the present results. When they found that at the end of a year, notwithstanding the amount of reclaim-able land in Ireland, and the number of holdings requiring improvement, and the number of occupiers willing to avail themselves of the benefits of the section, only 150 occupiers had received advances, could they conclude otherwise than that the section had failed? The Prime Minister had spoken very wisely, of course, of the necessity of prudence in making advances of this kind; but, surely, the right hon. Gentleman would admit that under a rental of £20 or £10, numbers of tenants might be found with so vital an interest in retaining their holdings that the State would not act imprudently in making them an advance. Unfortunately, red-tapeism had always characterized the proceedings of the Board of Works in Ireland. The Church Commissioners had to deal with as igno-
    850
    rant a class of people as the Board of Works had; but the result was very different. The Church Commissioners transformed a great body of holders of Church lands from tenants into proprietors; and they did that by putting simple instructions in the hands of the people, and by taking the pains to communicate to the holders what facilities the law allowed to be given them. The Board of Works, on the contrary, took pains to keep such facts from the knowledge of the people, to keep the people in ignorance of what the law was; and it was for this reason that he was forced to dissent from the praise which had been lavished on the Board of Works. The Committee had received no explanation of the item of £800, being the amount of the architect's salary. Now, the architect was a prominent member—in fact, the leading spirit—in a building society in Dublin. Was it proper that the architect of the Board of Works should also be a leading member of a building society, which might, some time or other, call upon the Board of Works for advances of money? Was it proper that this gentleman should be able to act as a buffer between the Board of Works and the building society? He hoped the Government would see their way to require this architect to retire from one or other positions he held.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he noticed that the Vote for the Architect's Branch was £839, £39 of which was for car-hire. Dublin, the Committee well knew, was the most car-driving city in the world; and, in the name of common sense, why the architect of the Board of Works should pay £39 for car-hire in 12 months he could, not understand. A man could drive from Westland Row to King's Bridge for 6d.; and, therefore, £39 for car-hire was a preposterously large sum to allow a man with a salary of £800. The Board of Works seemed to be one of the many bad institutions of Dublin Castle. £3,500 was set down to be paid to Inspectors of works in progress under the Land Improvement Act. What public works were in progress in Dublin to warrant an expenditure of £3,500 for their inspection? Who were the Inspectors? How many were there? It was a remarkable fact that, in the Estimate, the number of Inspectors was not given. He noticed that the soli-

    851
    citor's branch of the Board of "Works cost the country £2,100 a-year. What was the legal business of the Board of Works to entitle them to expend such a sum? In addition to the sums he had already quoted, he found £2,200 was allowed for travelling expenses. Was it intended to afford any explanation of this item? Who were the officials? What were their duties? What works had they to inspect that would justify an allowance for travelling expenses of £2,200, in addition to the sum of £3,500 for inspection of works under the Land Improvement Act? This was altogether separate from anything done under the Land Act of 1881, for, as had already been pointed out, £5,000 was set down as the cost of granting loans under the Act of last Session. Furthermore, £1,200 was charged for extraordinary staff, £900 of which was for the engineer of the pier and harbour works. How many piers in Ireland had been repaired this year? He would not complain of this Vote, if the piers and harbours were in good repair; but it was because the money was spent upon officials, and not upon the piers, that he took his objection. Then there was £300—[The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. W. M. Johnson): It is absurd.] He overheard the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland say this criticism was absurd. Where had the money been spent? What amount of money had been spent upon pier and harbour works, for the inspection of which was charged £1,200? Had £12,000 been spent in harbour works? When works were in progress, what was inspected? In his own county the Grand Jury at first declined to take over some works, because they knew from information that no inspection of the works had taken place during their progress. The county had since been saddled with an enormous expenditure in maintaining the works. Had the county itself erected them, they would have put in proper foundations, and thus have obviated considerable expenditure. Now, as to Colonel M'Kerlie. He (Mr. Callan) was surprised the Government kept the gallant gentleman in office. He would tell the Committee a story about Colonel M'Kerlie. Twelve years ago, the inspector ship of the Boyne navigation from Drogheda to Navan, attached to which was a salary
    852
    of £200 a-year, was vacant, and Mr. Thomas Whitwell nominated a gentleman for the post. The gentleman nominated was a native of Drogheda, and passed a very creditable examination upon his appointment. Colonel M'Kerlie sent for him, congratulated him upon the able and creditable manner in which he had passed the examination, and asked him where he had been. The gentleman replied that he had been at Wexford, and, in answer to a further question, said he was a Catholic. He was thereupon bowed out, and in two days afterwards his appointment was cancelled. He (Mr. Callan) brought the matter before the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Chichester Fortescue), now Lord Carlingford. The right hon. Gentleman said—"This is a very unfortunate thing, and I would rather you would drop it." He (Mr. Callan) said— "It is a matter I will not drop." The Chief Secretary for Ireland said—" Do you know anybody you could put in his place?" And he (Mr. Callan) immediately telegraphed to a gentleman in Dundalk, who voted for him at the previous election. ["Oh!"] Oh, he never forgot these things. He telegraphed to the young man to know if he would accept £200 a-year, and the next day he had an answer by telegraph, saying he would be most happy to do so. He nominated his friend for the post, on the express condition that he was not to bring the matter before the House. His friend had held the appointment ever since. ["Oh!"] He would do the same thing to-morrow if he could. The Prime Minister seemed shocked; but he thus acted at the instigation of a Member of the right hon. Gentleman's own Cabinet, and he (Mr. Callan) was most happy to receive the suggestion, because he was able to benefit one of his constituents to the extent of £200 a-year. He found, from the annual Report, that his friend had given great satisfaction in his office. He mentioned these circumstances to show the Committee that Colonel M'Kerlie disqualified the original candidate on account of his religion. He (Mr. Callan) was invited by the hon. Member for Gal way (Mr. Mitchell Henry) to give evidence before the Departmental Committee; but he and The O'Conor Don declined to do so, because they knew they would be pumped well, but that due consideration would not

    853
    be given to their complaints. As long as Colonel M'Kerlie was at the head of the Board of Works in Ireland, there was not the slightest chance of that Board being of any value in promoting the best interests of the country. Colonel M'Kerlie was a worn-out public servant; he ought to be got rid of, and some deserving young man promoted who would be of service to the country.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished, as the Mover of this reduction, to disassociate himself from any expression of personal discourtesy to Colonel M'Kerlie. He did not know Colonel M'Kerlie; he had no reason to suppose that, in the administration of his office, he had been guilty of anything unworthy of a gentleman, or of a respectable public servant; and the only ground upon which he moved the reduction of the Vote was that a Committee appointed to investigate the administration of Colonel M'Kerlie's office recommended his retirement, and that it was notorious in Ireland that the present administration of the Board of Works was destructive to the public interest.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 10; Noes 86: Majority 76. — (Div. List, No. 314.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (3.) £3,170, to complete the sum for the Record Office, Ireland.
    (4.) £14,552, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Ireland.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he noticed that a considerable part of the Vote—namely, £12,416—had reference to the taking of the Census in Ireland in 1881. It would be well if the Chief Secretary for Ireland would let the Committee know how far the publication of the Census had proceeded, and by what time the Returns would be complete.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was glad to be able to give the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) a little information on this point; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would consider it of a satisfactory character. The books for the different counties had all been issued, with the exception of those for Roscommon, Mayo, Galway, and Sligo. The books for Roscommon and Mayo had gone to press; but those for Galway
    854
    and Sligo were yet under revision. All the county books, however, would be finished by the middle of August. The summary of the four Provinces was well in hand, and the General Report Tables were far advanced, and would probably be ready by the end of September. He would like to give one or two figures in the way of comparison between the work done in respect of the Census of 1871, and that in respect of the Census of last year. The first county book issued in regard to the Census of 1871 was published on the 3rd of September, 1872; the first county book in regard to the Census of 1881 was published on the 26th of September, 1881, or nearly a year earlier. The last county book for the Census of 1871 was published on the 20th of February, 1875; the last for the Census of last year would probably be published in August, 1882, or two and a-half years earlier. The General Report for the Census 10 years ago was published on the 29th of September, 1875, and that for the Census last year would probably be published in September, 1882, or three years earlier. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) would probably be glad to hear that this rapidity had not been purchased by an increased outlay of money. The total Estimate for the Census of 1881 was £26,000, being £16,000 less than the cost of the Census of 1871.
    Vote agreed to.
    (5.) £14,388, to complete the sum for the Valuation and Boundary Survey, Ireland.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (6.) £46,138, to complete the sum for Law Charges.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, under Sub-head B there was an item of £21,000 for Criminal Prosecutions. He wished to ask what was the total cost of the prosecution of the Directors of the Northern Counties Insurance Society—"Regina v. Milnes?" £7,000 had already been paid; but he would like to know whether there was another sum still payable in connection with the case; and, if so, what sum? There was another case about which he wished to ask a question, on the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report in regard to the accounts of the year. He found this note—

    855
    "Included under this Sub-head B are payments of £6 each to twelve jurymen in the case of 'Regina v. Birch' and others."
    The trial of the Directors of the West of England Bank came on before the Lord Chief Justice of England and a common jury at the Central Criminal Court, and lasted eight days. At the conclusion of the trial the foreman of the jury appealed to the Lord Chief Justice to allow the jury expenses, and the Judge stated he had no power to make them any allowance; but if it were in his power he would do so. The matter having been referred to the Treasury, their Lordships, acting under the advice of their solicitor, awarded the 12 jurymen an allowance of £5 each. What he wanted to put before the Committee was the consideration whether it was a right and proper thing that jurymen in Crown cases should be taught to look to the Crown for payment, and especially that that payment was to be made only after the finding of the verdict. It appeared to him there was something about this precedent of an extremely dangerous character, and of a character altogether at variance with the popular notions of the purity of the administration of justice. The administration of justice probably stood higher in England than in any other country in the world; but if that sort of precedent was to be introduced, there was a very great danger of the great reputation of the public administration of justice being considerably assailed.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that the question of the payment of jurymen in the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was raised before the Committee on Public Accounts. Payment to jurymen was only granted in cases of a special nature, and where a trial had continued at very great length. The Committee on Public Accounts reported that they saw no reason to question the decision of the Treasury in awarding, under the special circumstances of the case, and after the trial was concluded, payment to the jurymen in the matter of "Regina v. Birch and others."
    MR. R. N. FOWLERpointed out that the Crown had no more to do with the case referred to by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) than the hon. Member had himself.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that what the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. N. Fowler) had said only applied to that particular case; but if an example were given in particular cases that the Government would give fees to jurymen, it might come to be that a very strong inducement would be held out to jurymen to find verdicts. He believed that in special jury cases, if the juries did not give a verdict either for the plaintiff or the defendant, the result was that they did not get a fee; but if they did give a verdict, either for one party or the other, they did get the fee. He rose, however, to call attention to two small items in this Vote. Under Subhead H, he found the item of £13 for the Advocate General of the Office of Lord High Admiral, and £100 for Counsel and Judge Advocate for the affairs of the Admiralty and Navy. He desired to receive some explanation of those two items.
    The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that, with reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), he had to say that he shared very much the views of the hon. Gentleman himself, because he considered that the payment of jurymen was a matter that ought to be very carefully watched. In this instance, however, he understood that the payment was not made until the case was over. If the application had been made for payment during the trial, he thought the learned Judge would certainly have discountenanced any payment. It was well that the matter should be very carefully guarded, lest it should fall into a precedent, and he had no doubt that it would be so.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he wished for some explanation of the item which concerned the intervention of the Queen's Proctor in the Divorce Court. It was a very curious thing that an allowance should be made for the intervention of the Queen's Proctor of £2,200, and that only £200 in costs should be recovered; it really amounted to this — that the Queen's Proctor only intervened successfully one time in ten. He certainly thought that the greater portion of the expenses of the Queen's Proctor ought to be recovered; but, perhaps, it would be in the power of the hon. and learned Attorney General to explain the item satisfactorily. If the £2,200 included

    857
    the salary of the Queen's Proctor, there would be no cause for surprise; but it appeared that the salary of this official was £2,500 in addition.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, that the Queen's Proctor received no salary at all as Queen's Proctor; but he did as Solicitor to the Treasury. As to the amount of costs recovered, it must be remembered that it was a most difficult matter for the Queen's Proctor, from various causes, to prove his case; and that, no doubt, accounted for the small-ness of the costs recovered. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had referred to the case of "Regina v. Milnes." This was a prosecution which commenced before the present Government came into Office. The trial lasted for a very considerable time; but he did not think that the outstanding payments would be at all large.
    Vote agreed to.
    (7.) £2,031, to complete the sum for Public Prosecutor's Office.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid that last year there was a discussion raised upon this Office, and it was certainly then the opinion of the Committee—as it was of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and, he believed, of the hon. and learned Attorney General also— that the Office was not at all in a satisfactory condition. The hon. and learned Solicitor General stated in the Committee that it was the intention of the Government to make an investigation into the Office; that the Office had not been of as much use as was desired; and he (Sir Henry Holland) now wanted to know whether any investigation had been made into the Office during the year, and what steps had been taken to put the Office on a better footing?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was true that the Office was not at all what could be wished; there was not Staff enough in the Office to enable the Public Prosecutor to take sufficient care of the public interest in the matter of prosecutions. He did not object to a discussion of the matter; but if a Public Prosecutor was to be fully maintained in this country, that could only be done at a very much greater expenditure. A number of agents throughout the country would be required, and a large sum of money would
    858
    be necessary for that purpose. Last year the Public Prosecutor had displayed considerable activity, and the effect of the existence of a Public Prosecutor had a great influence. At the same time, he felt that some inquiries ought to take place, and he would, represent that earnestly to the Treasury. This was a matter very much for public opinion, and he would represent the views of hon. Members to the Treasury.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would remind the Committee that last year, when this matter was under discussion, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) described the present system as a sham. The hon. and learned Attorney General had spoken about the necessity for a Staff of Assistants. What he (Mr. Warton) complained of was that a certain Staff of Assistants was provided for by Parliament. Last year this Staff was exceedingly small, and this was adhered to on some excuse with regard to the Treasury. In the interests of justice that was not a proper course. The Treasury might consider whether another Assistant was required, and they were empowered to appoint one, if they thought necessary. The Staff of one Assistant, one Chief Clerk, two Clerks, and a Messenger was perfectly ridiculous; and the excuse of the hon. and learned Attorney General would not hold water, because, under the Russell Gurney Act, a sufficient body of Assistants was provided for. Next year, he hoped there would be one more Assistant provided; and, if not, he (Mr. Warton) should use much stronger language with regard to the matter.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that it appeared, from the speech of the Attorney General, that nothing had been done this year, and that all that was promised was to represent the matter to the Treasury; but that was not what was wanted. What he desired was a Committee or a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of this Department. It might be that no more money was required, but that the matter was really one of re-organization.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the hon. and learned Attorney General had not contradicted his statement that it was originally intended that there should be these Assistants. He could understand the organization being commenced modestly with one Assistant; but did the Government

    859
    believe in the payment of a Public Prosecutor or not? If not, they had better abolish the Office altogether; but if they did believe in it, they should carry it out thoroughly; and it was absurd, after three years, to refer it to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who did not care two pence about the interests of justice.
    Vote agreed to.
    (8.) £120,436, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions, Sheriffs' Expenses, &c.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that under this Vote there was a salary of £900 for the Clerk of Assizes for part of the South-Eastern Circuit; and also a salary of £953 for the Clerk of Assizes for part of Essex, Kent, Sussex, and Surrey. He did not wish to disturb either of those gentlemen in the enjoyment of their offices; but all these places followed one another in continuous order, and he wished to know whether it was not sufficient to have one Clerk for what had now become one Circuit, or whether the Government intended to keep up two Clerks of Assizes? If these places were to be treated as one Circuit for professional purposes, were they to be treated as one Circuit in regard to salaries?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that in these cases it was decided that whenever either of these offices was vacated, the offices should be made one, and when a vacancy occurred the Treasury would arrange for one payment.
    MR. BIGGARasked how it was that there had been a reduction in the salary of the Clerk of Arraigns from £500 to £400?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not know why there had been this reduction, unless there had been a new appointment.
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.) £101,017, to complete the sum for the Chancery Division and Supreme Court Generally.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, it was stated last year that a Committee would be appointed to consider whether the Staff of Sir William Dunbar, the Comptroller and Auditor General, should not be enlarged, to enable that officer to make a substantial and real audit of the Paymaster General's Account. He
    860
    wished to know whether that Committee had been appointed, and the Staff increased; or what steps, if any, had been taken?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland), who was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Sir William Dunbar, in his last account, said—
    "In my former Reports, I frequently alluded to the insufficiency of my staff. I have had occasion again to report to the Lords of the Treasury, and they have intimated their intention to appoint an inquiry. The examination is now seven months in arrear, and I have been under the necessity of abandoning some important parts of the audit."
    This officer was appointed by the House to audit these accounts in Chancery, and yet he had to complain year after year of not being able to perform his important duties. He hoped the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would give some information in explanation of this matter.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, he remembered that when these funds were transferred there was a distinct promise given that the matter should be carefully attended to. There was considerable opposition offered to the Bill on that very ground, and he thought the matter deserved very serious consideration. If these funds were not in the hands of the Government there would be—he would not say a misapplication of them—but they would get lost in the great mass of other trusts. He hoped that serious attention would be given to this subject.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the Estimates showed a considerable alteration in an augmentation of the Paymaster General's Office.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, the question referred to the Comptroller and Auditor General's Office, and not to an increase in the Paymaster General's Office.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the question was whether the Chancery funds were audited or not. The Comptroller and Auditor General said he could not do this, and the Committee ought to receive some answer with regard to the carrying out of the promise made last year.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he did not wish to take up a strong attitude on this matter; but he thought some answer ought to be given.
    MR. ARTHUK O'CONNORsaid, he thought the Committee were now in a position very different from that of last year. Then there was a Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish), who, for mastery of detail and devotion to duty, and for exemplary attendance, and his assiduity in that House had, probably, never had an equal; and he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who had devoted considerable attention to the public accounts, could speak with appreciation of the noble Lord; but, at present, for any Member of the House to enter upon any criticism in that House of these accounts was very much like firing arrows into a haystack. The most careful criticism was utterly passed over, and that was a sad contrast to the circumstances of last year, when observations were certain of receiving intelligent appreciation from the Representative of the Treasury. Now hon. Members might make any number of complaints, and quote official authorities; but it was all no use, as there appeared to be no one who was capable of dealing with them.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought every hon. Member would agree with every word that had been uttered with regard to the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish). No officer could ever have performed his duties more efficiently than that noble Lord; but when the hon. Member said that the present Financial Secretary was not performing his duties in like manner, he ought to recollect that the Financial Secretary had come very recently into his Office. There was no continuity of the promises and pledges given last year; and it was competent for the Financial Secretary to say that he did not hear pledges given two years ago, and could only take up the thread given him by the Government. He thought the present holder of the Office was doing all he could to pick up the threads; and he was certain that it was his hon. Friend's (Mr. Courtney's) desire to place these questions fully before the House.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLthought the question was not whether the present Secretary to the Treasury was carrying out the promises given last year or not. The simple question was, whether the pledges had been carried out?
    MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, he felt bound to protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned Attorney General, that there was no continuity of pledges.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, what he had stated was that there was no continuity in the knowledge of his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney).
    MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, he understood the hon. and learned Attorney General to say that the pledges given by one Secretary to the Treasury were not binding on another. If the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement did not bear that meaning, he (Mr. Baring) had nothing more to say; if it did, then he entirely objected to the doctrine.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the words used by the hon. and learned Attorney General quite conveyed the impression described by the hon. Member (Mr. T. C. Baring). He (Mr. Warton) would make the suggestion that when one Financial Secretary to the Treasury made a pledge it should be recorded; so that if he died his pledge should remain on record.
    THE CHAIRMAN: We are going into a discussion on a question which is not that of the Chancery Division.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had made inquiries, and found that a Committee was appointed to consider this matter, and had come to conclusions which were considered satisfactory, but which he was not now able to state.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) £76,209, to complete the sum for the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not wish to object to any item in that Vote, but to throw out a suggestion to the Secretary to the Treasury, which he might be able to use in the interests of the Public Exchequer. He did not wish to enter on a discussion of the Middlesex Registrar's Office at present, because there was a Bill before the House on that subject; but the Middlesex Registry was an office established in 1704, and it was intended to do certain work of a particularly useful kind. That work was carried out for 17 years, and after that abandoned. For this work the Court was authorized to charge certain fees and no more; and, as a

    863
    matter of fact, the fees had not satisfied the Office, and some fees which were entirely unauthorized had for more than 100 years been charged. The fees so charged had enlarged the receipts of the Office beyond anything originally contemplated, and of all the officers originally appointed there now remained only one—Lord Truro—who received a certain share of the balance of the fees after paying the expenses of the Office. The Exchequer was supposed to receive a sum representing what ought to have gone to three Registrars, who were entitled to a share of the spoil. It must be remembered that the receipts of this Office came from public extortion, carried on for a long series of years. He did not blame Lord Truro, who had succeeded to an office which had fattened on the public before he assumed the office; but he had been endeavouring to discover whether the Exchequer received a fair proportion of the amount of fees realized by the Registry Office; and he was bound to say, as far as he had been able to trace the matter, there was a balance of several thousands of pounds due to the Exchequer which had gone somewhere else—he would not say to Lord Truro or to any other person—but it did not come to the Treasury; and he would suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury the advisability of obtaining from those who had the records a statement of the amounts realized—say, during the last 20 years, and the amount which, year after year, ought to have been paid to the Exchequer, and whether there was not, as he had stated, a very considerable sum, amounting to thousands of pounds, now due to the Exchequer from this source.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the figures he had before him showed that in 1881 and 1882 the amount received was £4,750, or one-half of the receipts.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the amount ought to be three-fourths.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there were originally four Registrars, but only one now remained; and the course pursued was that whenever Registrars were not reappointed, the fees they would have received should be divided, and the result was that for many years past Lord Truro had received one-half, and the Treasury the other half of the fees. There was a Bill before the House to
    864
    remedy this matter, a Bill reducing the amount that Lord Truro received from, half to a quarter.
    Vote agreed to.
    (11.) £56,990, to complete the sum for Probate, &c. Registries of the High Court of Justice.
    (12.) £6,162, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Registry of the High Court of Justice.
    (13.) £8,971, to complete the sum for the Wreck Commission.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he could say whether the alteration made last year in respect of the expenses and fees payable in connection with the Wreck Commission had resulted or not in an increase in the public charge?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he believed there had been no increase; but, on the contrary, a decrease in the charge.
    Vote agreed to.
    (14.) £20,136, to complete the sum for the London Bankruptcy Court.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, he must be allowed to express a strong hope that that was the last time they would see this Vote in this form. The state of the Bankruptcy Court was a scandal to the country, and the very fact that £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 had been accumulated through the operations of the Court without check was a grievance in itself. Practices went on every day amongst Bankruptcy trustees which, he might say, approached very nearly the limits of fraud. The costs of trustees accumulated in an unjustifiable manner, immense fortunes being often made out of the property of creditors. In fact, he did not know in what Parliamentary words to characterize these proceedings. He sincerely trusted this was the last time they would see this Vote.
    Vote agreed to.
    (15.) £325,039, to complete the sum for the County Courts.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he wished to know whether the Government intended to take steps to put an end to the illegality of paying more than was allowed by the law for revising the accounts of the treasurers of County Courts?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, they had a very fair prospect of being able to pass a clause to effect the object of the hon. Baronet. There was a Bill before the House in which it was proposed to include this clause. At present, however, there was a block against the Bill in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton).
    Vote agreed to.
    (16.) £3,442, to complete the sum for the Land Registry.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he was glad to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place now; because, on former occasions, no one had opposed this Land Registry Office with greater vehemence than that right hon. and learned Gentleman had done. They might expect, from the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that something would now be done in the matter. There was no division taken on the matter last year; but it was understood that the subject would be considered this Session, the Government being anxious to see it placed on a satisfactory footing. He (Sir Henry Holland) did not know whether anything had been done.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that as to the gentlemen who had been appointed in connection with the Land Registry, seeing that they were placed in the position of having very little to do, it was now proposed to transfer the Middlesex Land Registry Office to them. They would have to perform all the duties of that office combined with their own.
    Vote agreed to.
    (17.) £18,690, Revising Barristers, England.
    (18.) £8,556, to complete the sum for Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
    (19.) £286,858, to complete the sum for Metropolitan Police.
    (20.) £935,298, to complete the sum for Police, Counties and Boroughs, Great Britain.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would indicate the course the Government in-
    866
    tended to pursue in regard to the Bill relating to the superannuation of the police?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It has been dropped.
    Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I am sorry to hear it.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, he should like to say, in regard to the matter, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was as anxious as anyone that the Bill should be passed, and the trouble he had so far taken in the matter entitled him to the thanks of hon. Members. He (Mr. Magniac) hoped the measure would be introduced next Session, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would state what his prospect of dealing with it would then be. At one time it was said that there were great points of opposition in regard to the Bill; but, probably, these had been removed.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that "Hope springs eternally within the human breast." He himself had experienced great disappointment at his inability to pass the measure that Session, as the proposal contained provisions which were necessary to satisfy the just demands of a very deserving body of men. These men would feel very disappointed at the failure of the measure. With reference to one class of opposition to the Bill, he believed that, owing to the skill and judgment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), to whom and not to himself (Sir William Harcourt) the principal credit for the Bill was due, the feeling on the part of municipal boroughs against the measure had been entirely removed. There had been a feeling that it was the wish of the Home Office to obtain a more centralized power over the police of the country. Such, however, was not the feeling of the Home Office; indeed, it was opposed to their wish. So far from wishing to interfere in local self-government in regard to police, the Home Office desired rather to enlarge the power of the localities to deal with the local police. That was the feeling with which the Home Office was actuated; and, that having been brought home to the local authorities, all difficulties raised by them had been removed. There was a much, more formidable opposition, one that every Minister had begun to fear, and that was the opposition of that which was called the

    867
    Local Taxation Party. That was really the opposition which had been fatal to the Bill. All he could say was that he would do all in his power to secure for the measure an early day for discussion next Session.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the real question was as to the method of paying the police. They were now paid, half by the local authorities, and half out of the Consolidated Fund. He believed that if the same proportions were adhered to in the new Bill, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would find the task of passing it much easier.
    Vote agreed to.
    (21.) £284,677, to complete the sum for Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to know if the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the Secretary to the Treasury could inform the Committee if any system had been decided upon for valuing the proceeds of prison labour? Last year, when the question was raised, it was understood that it was under the consideration of the Home Office and the Treasury as to how the assessment of the value of prison labour should be made, checking the amount actually derived there from. As this was rather an important question in connection with Public Accounts, it was desirable that they should know what decision the Treasury had arrived at.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not quite gather the drift of the hon. Member's (Mr. Arthur O'Connor's) question. The proceeds of prison labour were given at the top of the page at £15,000. One thing he might say on this subject of convict labour was this— that it created a great deal of jealousy on the part of free labour. The Government desired to relieve the taxpayers of the country as much as they could by making the work of the prisoners lucrative. In order to reconcile the two kinds of labour as much as they could, they had been making an effort to employ convict labour on public works. That, they considered, would be less interfering with the public labour market than anything else. Great progress had been made; but he hoped that still greater progress would be
    868
    effected in the future in devoting prison labour to works of public utility.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he wished to draw attention to a suggestion made by the Public Accounts Committee this year. The Comptroller and Auditor General had impressed on them the desirability, now that the sale of manufactured articles had become an important item, of having a more complete check than they possessed already upon that item. There should be, he thought, a Conference between the Departments on the question. The matter was one of some difficulty; but perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would do what he could to assist in bringing about a satisfactory arrangement.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the matter had been brought under his notice, and he could promise the hon. Baronet that it would not be lost sight of.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, the question had been fully discussed, and the admission, or statement, had been made on the part of the Government, that the whole thing was in a transition state, and that the value of prison labour was difficult to estimate. If nothing had been done since last year, he did not think the estimate of the amount of receipts for this labour was a very reliable one.
    MR. BIGGARasked what had been done in regard to the bequests, made for the benefit of prisoners, in existence before the prisons were taken over by the Government?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, a Bill had been introduced that very evening dealing with the subject referred to by the hon. Member.
    Vote agreed to.
    (22.) £406,804, to complete the sum for Prisons, England.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, he had occasion, last year, to refer to this Vote, on behalf of some gentlemen interested in the question. The Committee was aware that many of the Justices interested in the matter had joined together to strengthen the hands of the Government in dealing with prisoners, so as to enable the Government to alleviate the condition of the prisoners. As to the conveyance of prisoners, by a legal

    869
    decision given some months ago, the cost of taking them from one place to another had been thrown upon the Government to a greater extent than had been expected; and it was generally understood that the Prison Commissioners were disappointed at that decision, and that an endeavour was being made—he did not say wrongly—to save the country as much as possible of the cost of conveyance, by sending prisoners, after their conviction, to the nearest prisons in which they could be confined. It had been shown, on the other hand, that great hardship might be inflicted on a prisoner by removing him to a prison out of his own county, though the prison outside his own county might be nearer than the county prison. He was glad to hear that the matter would be taken into consideration; and he thanked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the view he had taken concerning it.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he saw, on page 230, Proceeds of Prison Labour for 1881–2, nil, whereas the proceeds for 1882–3 were estimated at £20,000. How was that?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the £20,000 he could understand; but the nil he must confess he could not understand. Unfortunately, the hon. Member who had a knowledge of this subject had gone to bed.
    SIR HENRY HOLLAND: On Report I will repeat the question.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes; and I will see that an answer is prepared.
    Vote agreed to.
    (23.) £130,643, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.
    (24.) £17,142, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
    SIR WALTEE B. BARTTELOTsaid, he begged to call attention to the Report made by his hon. Friend sitting beside the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to criminal lunatics hitherto confined in county lunatic asylums, and to ask that it should be taken into consideration, so that the matter might be dealt with as soon as possible.
    Vote agreed to.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would now move, "That the Ch airman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." It was now 28 minutes past 1, and he did not know how many Bills the Government were going on with after this. Some would, no doubt, be taken, as they might yet, very easily, sit for another hour. They had to meet at 12 o'clock to-day, and the Sitting would not be like a Wednesday Sitting, which would, of necessity, terminate at 6 o'clock; but, looking at the amount of Business yet to be got through—owing to the Government attacks upon the House of Lords having thrown everything late— they might have to sit until very late. He hoped the Government would now agree to Progress being reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Warton.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the remaining Votes were not such as would cause discussion. The next Votes were for the Lord Advocate and Scotch Criminal Proceedings, the Scotch Courts of Law and Justice, and the Scotch Prisons. There were only three Scotch Votes.
    SIR HENRY HOLLAND: Will the Government agree to report Progress when the Scotch Votes are disposed of?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he was afraid he should have to call the attention of the Committee to one of the Votes.
    MR. WARTON: If there is to be any dispute on the matter, we had better report Progress at once.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: At any rate, let us proceed with the Votes until a dispute arises.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that if they took the first three Scotch Votes, and it appeared likely that a discussion would arise on the fourth, they could then stop.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    (25.) £40,260, to complete the sum for Lord Advocate and Criminal Proceedings, Scotland.
    (26.) £41,200, to complete the sum for Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland.
    (27.) £80,987, to complete the sum for Prisons, Scotland.
    House resumed.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  PARCEL POST BILL.— [BILL 254]
  (Mr. Fawcett, Mr. Courtney.)
  PARCEL POST BILL.— [BILL 254]

    CONSIDERATION. THIRD READING.
    Order for Consideration read.
    MR. FAWCETT: As there are no Amendments to this Bill, I would ask the House to consider it and allow it now to be read a third time.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he would not oppose the measure; but he desired to point out that some persons might be injured by it, and they were the people who for years had been engaged in the carrying trade—those who had hitherto had to do with the delivery of parcels. He saw the difficulty of admitting the principle of compensation, because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would tell him, there was no monopoly; but, at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman would admit that for a private individual to compete with the Post Office was an absolute impossibility. A great number of those interested in the carrying trade had communicated with him (Mr. Whitley), and had expressed the opinion that people who had carried on a business for 20 or 30 years, and had embarked large capital in it, would be utterly ruined by the passage of the measure. As compensation could not be given, he would ask whether it could not be arranged with the Railway Companies with whom the Postmaster General had entered into an agreement for the carrying of parcels at a certain tariff, that the same tariff should be allowed to the present carriers? If the right hon. Gentleman could do anything in that direction, he (Mr. Whitley) was sure he would remove a great deal of the apprehension which was now felt, and rightly so, by the members of the trade to which he referred. If the Postmaster General could see his way to exercise any influence he might have with the Railway Companies in order to induce the Companies to place the carriers in the same position pa to tariff as the Post Office, it would
    872
    be a great relief to an important class of traders; and, at the same time, he could not help thinking it would conduce to the interest of the Government.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, he was afraid it would be impracticable for him to make such a representation. He thought, however, that a feeling of self-interest would be likely to operate on the Railway Companies — as the Post Office, when this Bill passed, would not be able to prevent them from carrying parcels on their own account—and would make them anxious to give the best terms they could to the private parcel carriers. The Post Office would be limited to the carrying of parcels up to 7 lbs. in weight; and he believed the effect of the Bill would be to stimulate the carriage of parcels, and that very many more of over 7 lbs. in weight than were carried at present would be carried in the future. It seemed to him, therefore, that any pleas on behalf of the carriers would be unnecessary.
    Bill, as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES AND ASSURANCE BILL.— [BILL 190.]
  (Mr. Fawcett, Mr. Courtney.)
  GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES AND ASSURANCE BILL.— [BILL 190.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 3rd August.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title and construction) agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Limit of grant of annuities).
    On the Motion of Mr. FAWCETT, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, lines 25 and 26, leave out "through the medium of a savings bank;" and in page 2, line 1, leave out "two," and insert "one."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Contract for endowments and definition of insurance) agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Limits of insurance).
    On the Motion of Mr. FAWCETT, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 18, leave out "two," and insert "one."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Tables for annuities and insurances).
    On the Motion of Mr. FAWCETT, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 23, leave out from "persons," to "such," in line 24, and insert "entitled to insurances in force at that time."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Regulations).
    MR. W. M. TORRENS, in rising to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, said, that he ventured to raise a protest against the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, on behalf of those friendly societies which, he considered, had rendered great service not only to the working classes themselves, but the community at large, by enabling the working classes to make insurances. The right hon. Gentleman's intention, as he (Mr. Torrens) understood it, was to do a great service to the classes who at present were restricted, in some degree, as to the possibility of insurance; and he would, if the Committee were in a position to enter fully into the question, and would enable him to do so, state succinctly what seemed to him to be sufficient reasons why the proposition made by the right hon. Gentleman in this clause should be regarded as fraught with serious danger. He objected to the proposal on the simple ground that, in the independent Companies in which the middle classes had to insure, measures were taken to enable them to guard against fraud; whilst the Postmaster General proposed that the Exchequer should gratify the desire of poor people to make money out of the lives of their relatives. He (Mr. Torrens) could not help thinking that that was not likely to improve the morality of the working classes, or conduce to their domestic happiness. There were honest and dishonest men in all classes. Even in the orders of society to which Members of the House belonged there were, confessedly, sometimes found individuals who made very grave errors in the matter of insurance—errors deserving of being stigmatized in Courts of Justice with very severe rebuke; and it would be affectation to say that because a man lived by wage labour he was above the temptation to make an insurance that could not be defended. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to do that in the Post Office which was never done anywhere before—namely, to assure to the
    874
    amount of £25 without requiring any medical examination or certificate. He (Mr. Torrens) would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would sanction that system of insurance in the case of the upper classes? He thought that all of them who, in the course of their lives, had been moved by solicitude for the welfare of the working classes, and had identified themselves with the various movements which had taken place in the interests of those people, were bound to have regard to that sacred maxim, "Lead us not into temptation." The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman certainly seemed to him to be leading into temptation people who had never been so tempted before. His right hon. Friend said — for he (Mr. Torrens) had argued the question with him in private—that because a man was not likely to commit a fraud in his own case he was not likely to do it in others; but he (Mr. Torrens) did not agree with that at all. Working men, like other men, had family ties and in-cumbrances. If they taught him to gamble with the lives of his children, they would be taking a false step, which they would never be able to retrace. The right hon. Gentleman the Post-master General said he was cautious in this matter, and would not risk the public purse beyond £25 in each case; but how did the right hon. Gentleman know that his successor, whoever he might be, would not raise the maximum to £50? The present Government's proposal would prove simply the thin end of the wedge. If they taught these people to lose consideration for the health of their wives and children, they would never be able to go back, because when they proposed such a thing they would be told that they were casting aspersions on the character of the working classes. He knew it would be in vain, still he ventured to protest against this proposal, in the true interests of social economy. He wished to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 28, after "state of health," insert "and any other circumstance tending to affect the duration of life as certified in writing by a duly qualified medical practitioner resident in the district."—(Mr. W. M. Torrens.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, he had given careful attention, not only to what his hon. Friend (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had urged that night, but also to what he had previously urged in private conversation on the subject, and everything which fell from the hon. Member deserved careful and respectful attention. He (Mr. Fawcett) knew the interest the hon. Gentleman took in the subject. Well, he (Mr. Fawcett) was anxious to bring about an assurance for small sums, because he believed that, in that way, a structure of thrift could be gradually raised up amongst the labouring classes of the country. He believed it was possible—and those who had had experience in connection with friendly societies would bear him out—with proper security, to dispense with the necessity for a medical certificate. Medical certificates, there could be no doubt, offered very serious difficulty in the way of assuring for small sums. It was said that they could get certificates for small amounts, and that if a certificate was worth anything at all, it ought to be as careful in the case of a £5 insurance as in the case of an insurance for £500 or £5,000. That might be true; but experience taught them that a certificate was not as careful for a £5 insurance as for an insurance for a large amount. The Post Office proposed to adopt the greatest security against abuse, and it must be understood that the Post Office had no option as to the form in which the assurance business had to be carried on. The Post Office were merely agents for the carrying on of the business. The conditions of it had to be first of all laid down by the Commissioners, sanctioned by the Treasury, and then laid upon the Table of the House. What was proposed was this—that, in case of small amounts, the person who insured did so without a medical certificate; but the most careful inquiries would be made, and if the person insured died within six or 12 months he would get no advantage at all, and if within one or two years—the period being determined by the National Debt Commissioners—only half the amount assured. If the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) was in the House he would say, from the great experience he had had in connection with friendly societies in Liverpool, where they adopted this plan, that this system of deferred or partial payment would
    876
    give security against fraud. As to the temptation placed in the way of the working classes, he (Mr. Fawcett) knew that fear was sometimes expressed; but it seemed to him that such fears applied to the whole system of insurance, because if a man wished to insure a life from an improper motive, he would be more likely to do it in such a way as to be sure that the moment the life ceased he would be entitled to full benefit, rather than that if the life lasted so long as a year and a-half he would only get half the amount. If the House would give the Post Office the opportunity of making this experiment, it would be made under the most careful conditions laid down by the National Debt Commissioners.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he could not agree with what had fallen from the Postmaster General. One of two things must happen. If they were going to insure sickly lives, they must certainly load those lives, or else they would not be doing justice to the healthy lives; and how could they tell whether a life should be loaded, or insured at the ordinary premium, except on a medical inquiry? The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General said they expected to gain the object by refusing payment if death took place within a certain number of months; but how unfair that might be. Take the case of a postman, whose duty took him out in all weathers. Suppose he insured his life in October, and in November he caught cold and shortly afterwards died, he, or his family, were to be refused the insurance.
    MR. FAWCETT: Not necessarily. The assured will have the option of insuring under a medical certificate and coming to full benefit at once, or without a medical certificate and only coming to full benefit after a certain period.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman suggested, however, that the insurance would be principally without a certificate. A man might say—"I am strong and healthy; there is no occasion for me to go to the doctor; I will insure without a certificate," and soon after his insurance he might catch cold and die. Was there any reason why such a man as that should not have full benefit? There was no reason why there should not be a proper medical examination in every case. It could be

    877
    done at a very small price; a medical man could be appointed in every district, I who would give a certificate for a very small amount. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) would ask the right hon. Gentleman really to consider this matter again, and could assure him that it would be much better and safer if the assurance was allowed to all alike on a proper medical certificate.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he rather agreed with the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General. He (Mr. Whitley) had had some experience in insurances of this kind, and there could be no doubt that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was one which was advocated by the Insurance Companies, who had to deal with these lives. In assuring the lives of the poor—in £25 assurances, for instance—there was much greater difficulty in regard to medical certificate than in regard to assurances for larger amounts. When they came to deal with probably 100,000 people, it would be found that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was the most practicable one—that was to say, where a man, having the option of obtaining a medical certificate, refused to avail himself of that option, and chose to run the risk of dying before the end of six months, 12 months, or two years, it should be open to him to do so. Such risk would prevent that temptation which had been referred to this evening; and it must be borne in mind that this plan was one which was adopted by those Insurance Companies which did a large amount of business amongst the poorer classes. He really believed that in adopting the proposition of the Postmaster General they would be adopting the principle recognized by the Insurance Companies; and he could not help thinking that though medical certificates might be of some advantage where an insurance for a large amount was effected, he thought that where the amount assured was small the suggestion of the Postmaster General was one that would be most efficacious for protecting the Post Office from fraud, and, at the same time, be best for the working classes.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was very much impressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens). There was only one thing which the hon. Member had said with which he could not agree, and that was
    878
    his expression of the hopelessness of opposing the proposition of the Postmaster General. In matters of this kind they should never abandon hope. The question before the Committee was a very serious one. When they looked at this clause, the eye caught the figure of £25, and they imagined it was a question of £25; but, on looking a little further into the matter, they saw that the subject was insurance, and that the £25 might amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds a-year, and it became apparent that the undertaking was a large one. It was a very serious matter; but what was most serious was the question of principle. The proposal now made was an encouragement to people of all classes to endeavour to cheat the Government; and they knew that there were a great many people who would willingly cheat the Government, who would not cheat anyone else. Some ladies thought nothing of cheating the Revenue by smuggling lace into the country; and many people, without the slightest qualm, would bring through a few cigars without paying the duty. They must take people as they were. The honest man paid the Government all he owed, and paid his neighbour all he owed; but that was not the general sentiment. Amongst the lower classes especially, it was considered a clever thing to cheat the Government. He (Mr. Warton) gave the Postmaster General credit for good intentions; but he must say he thought his proposal most unjust. How did Insurance Companies live? Why, they had tables prepared as to the average risks in ordinary lives, and they insured people by those tables, and they got the pull by cutting out the unhealthy lives. They got their profit by taking wholly healthy lives on calculations based upon all lives in general. How could the Government do as they proposed, seeing that if they did they would be cheating the healthy lives? He saw no provision in the Bill relating to option, and he protested against proceeding on the assurance of what was to be done.
    An hon. MEMBER said, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) did not seem to be aware that the whole subject had been before a Select Committee, and that they made no recommendation on this point, because there was ample evidence that the Post Office could protect itself.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the Post Office could only protect itself by aiding honest people. His wish was to see the morality of the people protected.
    Question put, and negatived.
    On the Motion of Mr. FAWCETT, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 42, after "Act," insert—
    "Or otherwise for regulating the mode of payment of such annuities or insurances, or of any annuities granted under any Acts repealed by 'The Government Annuities Act, 1853,' and for regulating the receipts to be given for the same; "
    Page 4, line 3, at end, insert as a separate paragraph—
    "(e.) For enabling a person to whom an insurance is granted to nominate a person to whom the money due under such insurance, not exceeding fifty pounds, is to be paid on the death of such person, and for the discharge to be given for such money; and."
    Line 5, after "for," insert—
    "The making of contracts, the making of payments to obtain Savings Bank Annuities and Insurances out of the deposits in a Savings Bank."
    Line 6, after "behalf and," insert "the contracts and payments so made;" and, in line 13, at end of Clause, insert—
    "Regulations may be made, in pursuance of the said section sixteen of 'The Government Annuities Act, 1864,' as amended by this Act, by the National Debt Commissioners, with the approval of the Treasury, so far as regards any annuities and insurances granted by such Commissioners either directly or through any parochial or other securities."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Application of Saving Banks Acts).
    On the Motion of Mr. FAWCETT, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 24, leave out "obtaining," and insert "the immediate purchase of;" and, in line 34, leave out from "and," to "unlawful," in line 37, and insert—
    "And it shall be lawful to credit the account of a depositor with any such deposit or sum: Provided, That if, after such deposit or sum has been credited, the aggregate sum standing to the credit of a depositor exceeds the maximum amount which otherwise is allowed to be deposited in a savings bank, either in any one savings bank year or in the aggregate, such excess shall bear no interest, but shall be forthwith applied to the purpose for which it was deposited, or paid over to the depositor."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Trust and joint account).
    On the Motion of Mr. FAWCETT, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 42, after "insurance," insert—
    "(Except such trusts as are from time to time recognised by law in relation to deposits in savings banks, and except such trusts as are provided for by section ten of 'The Married Women's Property Act, 1870,' or any enactment now or hereafter to be passed relating to the property of married women); "
    Page 5, line 2, after "receivable by," insert "the National Debt Commissioners or;" line 14, before "as," insert "persons;" and, in line 17, leave out "the," and insert "any."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Insane or incapacitated grantee); Clause 10 (Amendment of 27 & 28 Vic. c. 43, ss. 8 & 11, as to surrender of policy or assignment of policy after payment of five years premium); Clause 11 (Forfeiture by person holding annuity or insurance exceeding the maximum or making false declaration); and Clause 12 (Penalty for receiving annuity or insurance in fraud of the Commissioners) severally agreed to.
    Clause 13 (Application and investment of sums paid for savings bank annuities or insurances), postponed.
    Clause 14 (Definitions) agreed to.
    Clause 15 (Repeal of Acts and savings).
    On the Motion of Mr. FAWCETT, the following Amendments made:—In page 8, line 23, insert as a new paragraph—
    "The regulations in force under any enactment repealed by this Act shall continue in force until revoked or superseded by regulations made in pursuance of section sixteen of 'The Government Investments Act, 1864,' as amended by this Act."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. FAWCETT, the following New Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill, after Clause 15: —
    (Extension of Acts to Channel Islands and Isle of Man.)
    '"The Government Annuities, 1853,' 'The Government Annuities, 1864,' and this Act shall extend to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and the Royal Courts of the Channel Islands shall register the same accordingly"
    Preamble.
    On the Motion of Mr. FAWCETT, the following Amendment made:—In page

    881
    1, line 7, leave out "when granted through the medium of savings banks."
    Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) [PAYMENTS TO FUND, &c.].

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, there was one point in connection with this subject that he wished to call attention to, and he took that opportunity of doing so because the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, a few nights ago, had unintentionally led him astray by saying that the Bill connected with this subject provided for appeal from decisions in the case of casualties at sea, which appeal, at present, did not exist. The only appeal was in the case of masters, whose certificates had been cancelled; there was no appeal for the owners of ships. Now, his hon. Friend, as he (Mr. Whitley) had before remarked, had certainly stated that that would be provided for in the Bill; but, on examining it, he found it contained no such provision. Then he had to ask the attention of the House and Her Majesty's Government to the fact that the Bill proposed to charge the Mercantile Marine Fund with the costs of surveys in connection with the Boiler Explosions Act of this Session. But he wished to point out that that Act had no connection whatever with the Mercantile Marine Fund, which was made up chiefly from the subscriptions of sailors. It certainly, at first sight, seemed a strange thing to charge the Fund with the surveys of steam boilers, because, in the Explosions Act referred to, explosions of boilers at sea were expressly excluded; and, therefore, it seemed to him unintelligible to say that the Mercantile Marine Fund should be charged with the expenses of surveys in connection with the Boiler Explosions Act recently passed. He thought, therefore, that some good reason should be given why accidents connected with
    882
    the explosions of boilers on land were charged to the Mercantile Marine Fund. The proposition that £75,000, at present collectable from sailors, should not be charged hereafter, would be very gratifying and a great advantage to the mercantile community. There was no doubt these charges were a very serious tax on seamen; but when he looked at the Bill he found that this remission was not carried out by it; because it was left for the Board of Trade to decide. He thought that was not quite fair, and that in. the Memorandum explaining that this £75,000 would be remitted, it ought to be distinctly stated that the Mercantile Marine Fund should be absolved from paying this amount of money every year. According to the Bill, it would be in the power of the Board of Trade, if they thought fit, to remit these fees, and he was aware that the objects of the Bill had been arranged between the Treasury and the Board of Trade; but he thought it unfair at the end of a Session to introduce a Bill which, on the face of it, by this Memorandum, purported to relieve the shipping community of £75,000 a-year, but then provided that the Board of Trade might refuse to remit the fees. He should like to have a definite expression of opinion upon this, and a distinct assurance that, if the Bill passed, the £75,000 a-year, now levied on seamen, should really be remitted. If he could get that assurance from the President of the Board of Trade, or any other Member of the Government, he should be relieved of much of his difficulty with regard to the Bill.
    MR. J. HOLMSsaid, it was intended that the £75,000 should be remitted; but he thought it was rather late to enter upon a discussion of the Bill at that hour of the night. It was only proposed, when the Bill came on, that the Speaker should leave the Chair, and Progress be reported.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MATTER considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to he provided by Parliament, of an annual sum of £40,000 to the Mercantile Marine Fund; and of authorising the repayment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of charges paid out of rates in respect of costs incurred in prosecutions for offences committed at sea, and of expenses

    883
    connected therewith, which may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law with respect to the charges on and payments to the Mercantile Marine Fund, and to expenses of prosecutions for offences committed at sea.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  ALLOTMENTS (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Burt, Mr. Brand, Mr. Bryce.)
  ALLOTMENTS (re-committed) BILL.

    [BILL 227.] COMMITTEE.
    [Progress 3rd August.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 5 (Power to let lands inconveniently situated).
    On the Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, the following Amendment made:— In page 2, line 32, leave out "the," and insert "any."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Saving old rights).
    On the Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 37, after "nor," insert "section twelve of;" line 40, leave out from "operation," to "but," in line 42; page 3, line 4, leave out "such," and insert "the;" line 4, leave out "a poor person," and insert "poor persons;" line 9, after "if," insert "they had been legally settled in the parish and;" and in line 9, after "and," insert "section twelve of."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Preference to cottagers living in parishes where the lands are situate).
    On the Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 14, leave out "cottagers and labourers," and insert "poor."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Where lands are held partly for the benefit of the poor) agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Charity Commissioners to settle rules in certain cases).
    On the Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 27, leave out from beginning of Clause to "as," in line 34, and insert—
    "The trustees or the majority of them may from time to time make and, when made, revoke and vary such rules;"
    Line 35, leave out "such;" line 35, after "allotments," insert "under this Act;" line 36, leave out from "for" to "preventing," in line 39; line 41, leave out "and regulations;" page 4, line 1, leave out "and regulations when so settled and approved," and insert "as are for the time being in force under this section;" and in line 2, at end of Clause, add—
    "Provided that—

    (a.) A copy of all rules made under this section shall be sent to the Charity Commissioners as soon as may be after they are made, and the Charity Commissioners may, if they think fit, by order disallow any rules made under this section, and upon such disallowance the same shall be void;

    (b.) Such public notice as is provided by the Schedule to this Act shall be given of all rules in force under this section, and a copy thereof shall be at all times given gratis to any cottager or labourer demanding the same;

    (c.) Any four cottagers or labourers, or any of the trustees, if aggrieved by any such rules, whether in respect of anything contained therein, or of any omission therefrom, or if aggrieved by the want of any rules, may complain to the Charity Commissioners, and the Charity Commissioners, if they think such complaint is well grounded, may make such order as appears to them necessary to remedy the complaint. Any such order may rescind or alter any such rules, and may make any rules for the purposes of this section, and such rules shall be duly observed by all persons and corporations whatsoever."

    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 10 (In case of neglect of trustees to publish notice).
    On the Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 4, leave out "appropriation," and insert "setting apart;" line 7, leave out "a portion," and insert, "any allotment out;" line 12, leave out from "shall," to the end of the Clause, and insert—
    "Cause a complaint of such omission, neglect, or refusal to be, without charge to the applicant, sent to the Charity Commissioners, who shall inquire into the complaint, and the said Commissioners if satisfied that such omission, neglect, or refusal exists, and requires to be remedied, may send a certificate to that effect to the county court judge, who shall issue his order for remedying in manner specified in the certificate, such omission, neglect, or refusal, and such order may be enforced in like manner as an order made by such judge in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on the court by 'The

    885
    Charitable Trusts Act, 1853,' and the Acts amending the same."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Certificate of Charity Commissioners sufficient defence for trustees).
    On the Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 21, leave out from "not," to "r," in line 22, and insert "giving such public notice or proceeding for such setting apart of land as is required by this Act;" and in line 24, leave out from "any," to the end of the Clause, and insert—
    "Complaint of any omission, neglect, or refusal on the part of the trustee to give public notice or proceed for the setting apart of land or otherwise comply with the provisions of this Act, or to any action, or suit in respect of such omission, neglect, or refusal."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. WARTONmoved to report Progress, on the ground that the Committee were going too fast.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Warton,) —put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 12 (Arrears of rent, and in case of refusal of tenant to quit).
    On the Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 29, leave out "arrears of;" line 34, after "same," insert—
    "And sections one hundred and ten, and one hundred and eleven of 'The Inclosure Act, 1845,' shall apply as if they were herein enacted, and;"
    line 35, after "of," insert "local;" and in line 35, leave out "Acts," and insert "sections."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. HIBBERTmoved the insertion of the following Clause after Clause 12:—
    (Letting of allotments.)
    "With respect to the letting of allotments in any field or portion of land set apart for the purposes of this Act, the following provisions shall have effect:—

    (1.) Public notice of the intention to let the same shall be given in manner directed in the Schedule to this Act;

    886

    (2.) Every allotment shall be let free of all charges (that is to say): tithe, tithe rent-charge, rates, taxes, and outgoings whatsoever, and shall be let at such rent as land of the same quality is usually let for in the same parish, with such addition as is necessary to satisfy the said charges, and, in this section, the expression 'outgoings,' includes the expense of getting possession, and allotting, dividing, and fencing the field or portion of land set apart and collecting the rents, and any sum payable for such draining of the allotments and means of approach to the allotments as may be necessary;

    (3.) The trustees shall, for the purposes of all rates, taxes, tithes, and tithe rent-charge be deemed to be the occupiers of the allotments;

    (4.) One person shall not hold any allotment or allotments exceeding one acre;

    (5.) No building whatever shall be erected for or used as a dwelling or workshop on any part of any allotment, and if any building is so erected or used, the trustees shall forthwith pull down the same and sell and dispose of the materials thereof, and the proceeds of the sale shall be applicable in like manner as the rent of the allotment;

    (6.) If at any time the trustees are unable to let any allotment or any portion thereof, they may let the same or such portion thereof as may be unlet, to any person whatever at the best annual rent which can be obtained for the same, without any premium or fine, and on such terms as may enable them to resume possession thereof within a period not exceeding twelve months if it should at any time be required to be let for allotments; but such letting shall not be deemed to exonerate the trustees from giving public notice under the foregoing provisions of this section,"

    Motion agreed to; Clause inserted accordingly.
    MR. HIBBERTmoved the insertion of the following Clause, to follow the preceding Clause:—
    (Provision for allotments in scheme of Charity Commissioners.)
    "Where a scheme is made by the Charity Commissioners after the passing of this Act in relation to any charity, and part of the endowment of such charity consists of land other than buildings and the appurtenances of buildings, the Charity Commissioners shall insert in such scheme a provision authorising the trustees of the charity to set apart portions of the said lands for allotments, and the same may be set apart and let as allotments in like manner as is directed by this Act."
    Motion agreed to; Clause inserted accordingly.
    MR. HIBBERTmoved the following Schedule:—
    Schedule.
    (Regulations as to public Notices and Lettings.)
    "1. Public notice, for the purposes of this Act, shall be given by fixing the notice on the doors of the church of the parish in which the land referred to in the notice is situate, and if there is no church, then on some public building or conspicuous place therein.
    "2. Public notice of the setting apart under this Act of a field or portion of land shall be given in the month of February, or such other month as the trustees may fix, and the first notice shall be given in the said month next after the passing of this Act, and if not so given shall be given as soon as may be afterwards, at such time as may be fixed by the trustees, or in case of their default, by the county court judge for the district in which the land is situate, or by the Charity Commissioners.
    (Letting.)
    "3. The public notice of the intention to let an allotment out of land when set apart, shall specify the amount of land to be let, and the rent per acre or rod to be paid, and the place and time at which applications are to be made, and shall be given annually in the month of June, or in such other month as may be fixed by, or in pursuance of, rules under this Act: Provided, That, in any year in which there will be no allotment vacant out of land already set apart, it shall not be necessary to give such notice.
    "4. The first public notice of the intention to let an allotment shall be given in the month of June next after the trustees obtain possession of the allotment, or at such other time not more than one month later, as may be fixed by or in pursuance of rules under this Act; and, if not so given, shall be given at such time as may be fixed by the county court judge for the district in which the land is situate, or by the Charity Commissioners.
    "5. The time for applications for allotments out of land when already set apart shall be the month of August, or such other month as may be fixed by or in pursuance of rules under this Act.
    "6. The allotments shall be let to persons in the order in which they apply, or in accordance with such other order as may be provided by rules under this Act, so that there shall be no undue preference shown as regards the persons to whom they are let.
    "7. Each allotment shall be let on a yearly tenancy beginning at Michaelmas Day, or at such other day as may be fixed by or in pursuance of rules under this Act."
    Motion agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 258.]
  (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 258.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)moved the following Clause:—
    (Prohibition in anticipation of income.)
    "It shall not be lawful for the Board to anticipate in one year the income of any future year; but this enactment shall not prevent the hiring of any office, the assignment of salary of any officer, the grant of exhibitions, or any other like act in one year which involves a periodical payment not only in the said year, but in future years."
    Motion agreed to; Clause inserted accordingly.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
  (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Samuel Morley, Mr. Jacob Bright, Mr. Passmore Edwards, Mr. Buchanan.)
  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.

    [BILL 206.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said that no Bills but Government Bills would be taken at the Saturday Sitting.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was afraid the Government could not allow the second reading of this Bill to be taken to-morrow.
    MR. ANDERSONprotested against the Government pledging the House not to take certain Business on any particular day. It had never been the practice to prevent a private Member putting down his Bill for any day on which the House sat. It was quite an innovation on the part of the Government to say—"We won't allow a Bill to be put down on any particular day." It was a mean and selfish thing on the part of the Government to say—"We will put down our Bills for this day, but won't allow private Members to do so." He would remind the Government that three weeks ago, when they attempted to control the House in this way, the House declined to be controlled, and the Government got a well-deserved defeat. This was an innovation which the House ought not to tolerate, and, he hoped, would not tolerate. It was undoubtedly in the discretion of the House itself whether a Bill should be put down on any particular day. He wished to point

    889
    out that the Bill now in question was in a peculiar position on account of blocks. One of the hon. Members who had blocked the Bill had gone off to Ireland to amuse himself; and the consequence was that an hon. Member, who was no longer present taking any part in the proceedings of the House, but was 500 miles away, still continued to dominate the proceedings, just as if he were present. That was a most improper state of things. It was an abuse of the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule, and one which the House ought not to permit at all. He hoped the Government would not, at any rate, raise any objection to the Bill being put down for to-morrow. If, when the Order was called to-morrow, the Government or the House did not choose to go on with it, the responsibility was theirs, and he could not complain. He did most distinctly protest against the Government preventing him putting the Bill down for to-morrow.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow."—(Mr. Anderson.)
    MR. WARTONmoved that the Bill be put down for second reading on Monday.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "To-morrow," in order to insert the words "upon Monday next," —(Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
    Question put, "That the word 'Tomorrow' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 27: Majority 7.—(Div. List, No. 315.)
    "Words inserted.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Bill to be read a second time upon Monday next.

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [ADVANCES, &C.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise advances, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or out of moneys in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, held on account of Savings Banks, of any sum or sums of money not exceeding £3,000,000, in the whole, to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and not exceeding £1,200,000, in the whole, to enable the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, to make advances in promotion of Public Works.
    (2.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise further advances, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of any sum or gums of money, not exceeding £4,000,000, in the whole, to enable the Land Commission in Ireland to make advances, or for the purchase of estates, in pursuance of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881."
    (3.) Resolved, That the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt be authorised to advance, with the consent of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, to the Irish Land Commissioners the sum of £2,600,000, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision respecting certain arrears of rent in Ireland; and that it is expedient to authorise the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to guarantee the repayment to the said Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt of any moneys so advanced.
    (4.) Resolved, That it is expedient to empower the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to postpone, on such conditions as may be agreed upon, the payment of Annuities due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners by the Pulteney Harbour Trustees in respect of a loan made by the said Commissioners for the Pulteney Town Harbour in Wick Bay.
    (5.) Resolved, That it is expedient to amend "The Public Works Loans Act, 1875," "The Public Works Loans. (Ireland) Act, 1877," and "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861."
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

    REVENUE, FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, AND NATIONAL DEBT [STAMP DUTY, PAYMENTS, AND ADVANCES].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the imposition of a Stamp Duty on any grants or contract for payment of a Superannuation Annuity of the following amount:—

    For every full sum of £5, and also for every fraction less than £5, or over and above £5, or a multiple of £5 of the annuity

    6d.

    (2.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of compensation to certain officers for loss of fees, and the payment, by the creation of Terminable Annuities charged on the Consolidated Fund, of any deficiency in the sums due from the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to Friendly Societies.
    (3.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to advance, out of moneys in their hands on account of Savings Banks, any capital sum to be paid to the Treasury in pursuance of "The Prison (Officers Superannuation) Act, 1878," and to authorise the repayment to the National Debt Commissioners of such advances, either by Terminable Annuities to be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, or immediately out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    (4.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the National Debt Commissioners to lend, out

    891
    of moneys in their hands on account of Trustee and Post Office Savings Banks, sums payable by the Treasury to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, and the repayment of such loans by the creation of Terminable Annuities charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    (5.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund to the Duchy of Lancaster, of a sum of £15,000, in respect of escheats, fines, and recognisances within certain liberties of the Duchy of Lancaster, which sum may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for amending the Laws relating to Revenue, Friendly Societies, and National Debt.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE, Bill to continue various Expiring Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE and Mr. COURTNEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 266.]

  CORRUPT PRACTICES (SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to suspend for a limited period, on account of Corrupt Practices, the holding of an Election of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for certain Cities and Boroughs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 265.]
  House adjourned at Three o'clock till To-morrow.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue*.
Second Reading— Wellesley Bridge (Limerick) (207).
Committee—Turnpike Acts Continuance* (198).
Committee—Report—Civil Imprisonment (Scotland) * (208).
Third Reading—Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment * (203); Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order* (144), and passed.

EGYPT—THE RIOTS AT ALEXANDRIA—MASSACRE OF EUROPEANS.
  EXPLANATION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise to correct a misapprehension which has appeared in the papers. Yesterday, in answer to the noble Earl opposite (Earl De La Warr), who asked the number of Europeans who were killed at Alexandria during the first massacre on the 11th of June, I presume that I said —as all the reports agree—that the number was 20. I certainly thought that I said, and I meant to say, 60. That number was on the note that I wrote down before I came here.
EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD LAMINGTON, in rising to ask, Whether the Government will endeavour, through the Khedive, to obtain a peaceful solution of the Egyptian Question before commencing active military operations? and to move for further Papers, said, that since he gave Notice of the Question the aspect of affairs had changed; but he did not think it necessary on that account to alter the wording of the Question. He wished to ask it, in order that the Government might have an opportunity of serving one of the objects of his inquiry, by the noble Earl opposite the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his reply, giving
  728
  some explanation to the House of the present state of things in the East, and of the manner in which it was proposed by Her Majesty's Government to carry out the policy announced by Mr. Gladstone. He brought forward this question in no Party spirit. He felt the great responsibility of the noble Earl, and he would not enter upon any controversial matters. It was useless to look back on a past, which could not be recalled, but from which a lesson might yet be learnt. He wished to point out one matter of importance. He referred to the Dual Note, the Dual demonstration, and the Dual demand, which resulted in the sittings of the Conference, according to which we were the declared allies and almost the partners of France. He would not for a moment detract from the general importance of the Anglo-French Alliance; but, in regard to our relations with the Porte and the Moslem world at large, its consequences, it must be admitted, had been singularly unfortunate. France had been, and was, the aggressive European Power par excellence in North Africa. France had a few months before our common action seized Tunis and defied Turkey. In the present position of affairs, and linked as we were with France, it was impossible for the Sultan to act as he desired; and, therefore, he found himself unable to comply with our requests, because his acting, as the noble Earl wished, as our mandatory, would have destroyed his prestige as Sultan, and still more so as Caliph, in the eyes of the North African Arabs— the Native race inhabiting the whole of the great southern shore of the Mediterranean. Now matters had changed. France had left us, and there was no reason why Turkey should not deal with us in accordance with the friendly traditions of the past. It, therefore, appeared to him that our only course now consisted in a loyal observance of Treaties—and especially those Conventions guaranteeing the vital interest of the Ottoman Empire—and in a loyal regard for International Law and the comity of nations. The Government had brought forward the question of the Suez Canal, and a few weeks ago he (Lord Lamington) had pointed out that our interests in Egypt began and ended in it, and he should have had no objection to our sending our ships of war to protect our means

  729
  of communication with India; but he did not think that we had any right to land troops for the purpose of regulating the internal affairs of Egypt. This country should not take any step to prevent the Sultan from exercising his fair rights as Suzerain, or, as had been stated in the other House, as Sovereign of Egypt. Why he feared that full justice would not be done to the Sultan was, because he found a paragraph in the last despatch of the noble Earl, in which he called attention to Arabi Pasha having received a mark of favour from the Sultan, and then called upon His Majesty, before the despatch of any troops to Egypt, to issue a Proclamation upholding Tewfik Pasha, and denouncing Arabi Pasha as a rebel. The Porte said that when they landed troops they would issue a Proclamation that Arabi was a rebel. It should be remembered that Arabi was now the great leader of a great Party. The noble Earl first asked that he should be removed from his position in the Army; but he now demanded that he should be denounced as a rebel. Now, as to Arabi himself, he found that he had received the support of Mr. Blunt. That gentleman, he understood the noble Earl to say, lie knew nothing of; but he had been employed by the Government in Egypt, and he had been of great assistance to our officials there; and, at any rate, Mr. Blunt, a friend of Arabi Pasha and in communication with him, was also in communication with the Foreign Office. He should like to know what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Mr. Blunt, who was, after all, nothing but Arabi Pasha in a frock coat. Although we had not directly employed Mr. Blunt, he had been of considerable service to us, as was testified by Sir Edward Malet, who stated in his despatch, dated Cairo, December 28, 1881, that, although he disagreed with that gentleman as to the advisability of the publication of the national programme in The Times, he was bound to record that he considered himself under serious obligations to him for the manner in which he had dispelled misunderstandings which might have led to difficulties, and that he was anxious to acknowledge that he had in this matter already been of great assistance, and that he felt sure that the confidence which the Egyptians, with whom he was in contact, reposed in him would
  730
  enable him to render further and essential service to the cause of moderation in the conduct of the movement which was in progress. And yet this man was the personal friend of Arabi Pasha, whom it was now intended to compel the Sultan to declare a rebel. Lastly, he wished to say that we had no reason as yet to believe in any double-dealing on the part of Turkey; and, such being the case, he asked Her Majesty's Government to place the fullest confidence in her action now. He also trusted that we should allow her to fulfil the mission she had undertaken in Egypt at the mandate of Europe, leaving on her the fullest responsibility for its faithful execution. To do otherwise would be most inevitably to launch us on an enterprize, the perils, the dangers, the difficulties, and the extent of which no man could foresee. The noble Lord concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice, and moving for further Papers.
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House further papers respecting the Affairs of Egypt."—(The Lord Lamington.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that what the noble Lord (Lord Lamington) had just asked for from the Government was no more than was required by the law of nations, by the law of the land, and by the higher moral law. The tribute of admiration due to Mr. Bright for his consistency had been withheld in some quarters, on the ground that he ought to have left the Cabinet earlier; but some of his Friends said that this was not possible, as he and a portion of the Cabinet did not know of the orders for the bombardment until it was too late. He (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had only lately read that Mr. Goschen was one of a firm which had largely contributed to raising the Egyptian loans; if that were so, it was not fitting that Her Majesty's Government should have sent him as Ambassador to Constantinople. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) denied that that war was for the bondholders; but the sending of the Dual Note and of the Fleet was on their behalf, and it might be asked how was it that the greater part of the noble Earl's despatch to Lord Dufferin of July 11 referred to the

  731
  Egyptian Debt and the Control, and but a very small portion of it to the Suez Canal and other British interests? How-was it, too, that the Foreign Office had disregarded the remonstrance of the Egyptian Government with regard to the smuggling carried on by the large European population, who contributed nothing to the Revenue of the country; and yet, in March last, the Foreign Office had instructed the Consul General to secure the retention of Mr. Caillard at his post of Director General of the Customs, with a salary of £3,000 a-year. What excuse, again, was to be offered for the law of liquidation passed by a European Commission in April, 1880, by which £17,000,000, paid by the Egyptian cultivators to redeem in perpetuity half the rent of their land from 1885, was confiscated? That was done by repealing the law of Monkabala. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople could, indeed, argue that this was just and honest, on the ground that he himself had in a similar manner been deprived of some £20,000 with which he had bought up his Ulster tenant right. The noble Earl's despatch to Lord Dufferin of July 28, which had lately been delivered to their Lordships, was not written in very suitable language, and it was diplomatically wrong, since it spoke of the Sovereign power as though it had only the same rights in Egypt as any other of the European Powers. The withdrawal of France from supporting Her Majesty's Government by the recent Vote in the French Chamber was a reason of expediency which should influence Her Majesty's Government to listen to the entreaty which the noble Lord had just addressed to it.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not think the House will expect me to follow the remarks of the noble Lord who has just sat down (Lord Stanley of Alderley), except to express my great astonishment that he has thought it right to repeat insinuations against a man of such high character and honour as Mr. Goschen—insinuations which have been utterly disposed of amid cheers from both sides of the House in "another place." With regard to the Question which was asked by the noble Lord (Lord Lamington), your Lordships will remember that, a short time ago, a very interesting debate took place on Egyptian affairs, when I asked the
  732
  House to sanction the course taken by the Government, to which it appears the noble Lord is himself opposed. The speech which the noble Lord has just made would have been a valuable contribution to that debate, although whether it would have succeeded in preventing your Lordships giving your sanction to that policy—which you did unanimously, though with some strictures on the past policy of the Government—I do not know. But I do think this is an inconvenient way of renewing that debate, by leaving a Question upon the Paper which the noble Lord does not ask, and which he admits is no longer applicable. However desirable, therefore, the noble Lord may think the discussion, I must declare that for the present I do not think it would be convenient again to go over the same ground that we so lately travelled.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he desired to call the attention of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), as well as that of their Lordships, to the recent Proclamation of Arabi Pasha which had recently been extensively circulated in Egypt, and in which he declared that he was the Representative of the Sultan, and that troops were to be sent from Turkey to assist him. It was important to notice that among the signatures attached to the Proclamation of the Government established at Cairo there were those not only of persons connected with Arabi Pasha, but of persons who were at the head of the Christian and Mahomedan religions, and also of two Members of the Family of the reigning Khedive. These signatories declared that they adhered to the rebel cause. The document was of great importance, as it bore upon the question of succession to the Khedive, and that was one of the principal factors in the consideration of the ease; and it was significant that the Representative of the reigning Family had also signed the document which would place the Khedive in a position of hostility to his immediate relatives, and also in a position of strong hostility to that Party at Constantinople which had supported his rival to the Throne of Egypt. It was unfortunate that the difficulty of a disputed succession—always a matter of vital importance in an Oriental country—had arisen in the country; but there could be no doubt that it was so. Indeed, it was

  733
  quite possible that the troubles which had grown up in Egypt might be traceable to no other cause than the intrigues connected with this question of succession. He trusted, therefore, that, in dealing with the question, the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would keep that fact carefully in view, and that it would be fully considered by the Government, who had pledged its honour to support the Khedive.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, he wished to make a few observations. He bad to complain of the difficulty which existed in obtaining information from Her Majesty's Government—
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): My Lords, I rise to Order. There is no Question before the House, and I do not think the noble Earl is in Order in discussing this matter upon a mere Question which has not been put.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is always understood that in this House a Question may be discussed; but I understand there is a Motion for Papers.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, he would not detain their Lordships long. He must say he was sorry when he thought that the answer which the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had given would not be considered satisfactory. It would have been more so, both to that House and the country, if the noble Earl had told them that the Government were determined to act in a friendly manner with the Government of the Sultan; but he had made no declaration of that sort, and any measures which should bring this country into open acts of hostility to the forces of the Sultan would be a grievous calamity.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, at the risk of being considered disorderly, I wish to say one word in answer to the request of my hon. Friend (Lord Houghton), who speaks with considerable authority on this subject, and it is that I do not in the least share with him his apprehensions as to the importance of the document or the signatures attached to it, and issued by Arabi Pasha under his Proclamation. Whether the document has been signed by those persons, and whether it has been done under compulsion or not—as to which I am entirely ignorant—is a matter of little importance.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had been desired by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley), who could not speak again, to say that he did not intend to cast any aspersion on the character or reputation of Mr. Goschen. He was a great admirer of the ability of that right hon. Gentleman. As to the question before the House, the irresponsible speeches made by another right hon. Gentleman long since were really at the root of these difficulties.
  LORD LAMINGTON, in reply, said, he had no wish to embarrass the Government; but those who desired to maintain our alliance with the Ottoman Empire were bound to express their feelings, but he would, by permission, withdraw his Motion. In bringing the subject forward, he had merely vindicated his right, as a responsible Member of the Legislature, to express how much he desired to see Treaty obligations fulfilled and maintained.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

AFRICA (SOUTH) — CETEWAYO, EXKING OF ZULULAND — VISIT TO THIS COUNTRY—OFFICIAL RECEPTION.—QUESTION.
LORD NORTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, What caution he has taken that taking Cetewayo out of the hands of the Cape Government, and bringing him round through England to his own country again, may not appear to implicate us afresh in South African war, which may consequently revive, and relieve the Colonists from the understanding of their primary responsibility for self-defence which was recently impressed upon them; and what official reception Cetewayo was to have from the Government?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he thought there must be some misapprehension in the mind of his noble Friend (Lord Norton) in putting the Question, for his noble Friend asked, in effect, what precaution had been taken in bringing Cetewayo from the hands of the Cape Government; and, whether that would be construed as a part of the policy of the Government, and relieve the Colony from their responsibility for self-defence? His noble Friend must have forgotten that the Cape Government, for convenience, only undertook the charge of

735
Cetewayo, and it had nothing whatever to do with the Zulu War, and was in no way responsible for the peace of the frontier of Natal. The fact of the Cape Government having taken charge of Cetewayo had, therefore, nothing to do with the question of the Cape Colony defending itself; and Cetewayo, being no longer in the custody of the Cape Government, had no bearing upon the question of policy. Cetewayo had all along been looked upon as a prisoner of war taken by the Imperial Government; and the Zulu War, and the whole of those proceedings, were very largely conducted by Imperial Forces, and in pursuance of Imperial policy, and any step taken with regard to Cetewayo by the Imperial Government, that Government would hold itself responsible for. He entirely agreed with his noble Friend that it was highly desirable that they should do nothing to diminish the responsibility of the Colonists in South Africa for their self-defence. The Home Government thought it of the highest importance that the Colonists should be encouraged to undertake their own defence; and they had shown their feeling on that subject by the course they had taken in regard to the Basuto War, and also by the proposal they had made in respect to responsible government for Natal. He must confess, with regard to the latter part of the Question, that he was somewhat embarrassed with respect to the official reception of Cetewayo in this country. He did not know what was meant by official reception by the Government, neither was he aware that the ex-King would have any official reception, except such a reception as might be given him when he would be asked to call at the Colonial Office to say what he had to say. Anything like an official reception he certainly would not receive, for to speak of one being about to be given him was giving him a sort of importance, which, though he was no doubt a person as to whom a good deal of interest was excited, did not properly belong to him; and it seemed to be elevating him to a kind of pedestal which would give him a wrong idea of his position. Cetewayo would have every opportunity of communicating with the Government; but there would be nothing of the nature of an official reception.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of
736
Kimberley) had not noticed all the points put by his noble Friend (Lord Norton), the first of which was that, if the result of Cetewayo's visit to this country was to provoke a war, in that case the Colonists would have a right to complain. By bringing him to England they did incur some danger of creating disturbance in Zululand; and the responsibility for the consequences of that would ultimately lie at the door of the Home Government. Another point was that the fact of their having brought the ex-King to England was likely to convey a wrong impression to his mind; and on that point he (the Earl of Carnarvon) had been rather gratified to hear the noble Earl minimize the reception Cetewayo was likely to receive on visiting the officials of the Colonial Office, and that it was to be confined within the narrowest limits. To his (the Earl of Carnarvon's) idea, the wisdom of bringing him to this country was mistaken and doubtful, because, whether intentionally or unintentionally, it was calculated to create a false impression in the minds of his countrymen that it was but the prelude to his restoration.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) seemed to misunderstand the question. The noble Earl seemed to think that the visit of Cetewayo was a prelude to sending him to Zululand. Whatever might be the result of that visit, if it was followed by his return to Zululand, it would bring a certain amount of responsibility on Her Majesty's Government. Of course, if they took any decided steps in that matter, they would be taken in full appreciation of their responsibility; and the question would be whether these steps were steps of sound policy or not. If any step was taken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to Cetewayo that had an important bearing on South African policy, there was no doubt they would be responsible for it.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHheld it to be most unfortunate that Cetewayo should have been brought to England; and if he were permitted to return to Zululand, and a war ensued in consequence, Her Majesty's Government and this country would be bound to pay every shilling of its cost.
LORD NORTONsaid, that he understood most distinctly, when the question was brought before their Lordships a

737
few days ago, that it was the noble Earl's intention that Cetewayo should return to Zululand.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he could assure his noble Friend that he had never made any such announcement whatever. Whatever Her Majesty's Government might intend to do in regard to Cetewayo, their intentions had never been announced. Although Questions had been frequently put to him on the subject, he had always replied that the Government were not in possession of sufficient information to enable him to give a satisfactory reply.
LORD NORTONsaid, that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies was understood to imply as much in the answer he gave the other day to the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset), when the noble Duke questioned him with regard to the object of making Cetewayo take such a roundabout course as to visit this country on his way from the Cape to Zululand. The noble Earl then replied in effect that it was very desirable, in the event of Cetewayo returning to Zululand, that he should in the interval see something of the greatness of the resources of this country, so that he would go back a very different man from what he was before, and know something of the position in which he would put himself if he placed himself in conflict with such a country as this. The assertion of the noble Earl, that the Zulu War was undertaken simply for Imperial purposes, was one which he (Lord Norton) altogether disputed. That war was waged primarily for local interests, and Imperial interests were but secondary in it. He could only say that if Cetewayo's going from this country to Zululand should lead to any revival of the war there, this country would be held to be responsible. As to the reception that might be given to him, he maintained that, while it was hoped that he was not going to be made a "lion" of, even such a reception as the noble Earl had hinted at was calculated to raise Cetewayo's opinion of himself and of his position, and, what was much more important, give the Colonists probably an erroneous view of the relations subsisting between Cetewayo and the Home Government. It seemed to him, however, that the reception he would get was not such as would make him less pretentious on his return to Zululand.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, it was important that his words should not be wrongly interpreted, for his noble Friend (Lord Norton) had put words into his (the Earl of Kimberley's) mouth which he had never said. He had never said that the war in Zululand was undertaken for Imperial purposes. If he had said so, it would have been contrary to his own opinion. What he had said was that it was conducted by the Imperial Government, and at the expense of £5,000,000, to which the Colonists contributed a very small part.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—EMIGRANT SHIPS (CANADA).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD EMLY, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, What steps the Board of Trade have taken on account of representations made to them as to the defective arrangements for the separation of the sexes in the ships of the Dominion Line? said, their Lordships were aware that among the emigrants going out to Canada were a number of unmarried women. Means were provided on the other side of the Atlantic for their reception on their arrival; but it did not appear that sufficient protection was provided for them during the passage. He thought that a proper female officer should be appointed to each steamer to see that the regulations for the separation of the sexes were properly carried out. He would be glad to hear from his noble Friend who represented the Board of Trade (Lord Sudeley) what arrangements would be made to remedy the present unsatisfactory state of things.
  LORD SUDELEY, in reply, said, that, in the first place, he should explain that the Board of Trade had never taken the extreme view-that was sometimes entertained that, in all cases, the sexes, married and single, should be kept separate on board emigrant ships proceeding across the Atlantic. The Board rather held to the view that it was better, in the interests of order and morality, that husbands and wives proceeding in the same ship should proceed together, rather than suffer a temporary divorce. It had been made clear to them that a husband and wife could look after and assist each other and their young child-

  739
  ren by being together, much better than they could be looked after and helped if strict separation were the rule. What the Board of Trade had done was this —They had endeavoured to get the Companies to adopt a strict rule whereby the single men's quarters should be in the fore part of the ship, and the single women's quarters in the after part of the ship, with permanent bulkheads, and the married people's quarters between, so that there should be no connection between these several parts of the ship; and that separate and distinct ladder-ways should be provided for each of the three descriptions of passengers. Among the suggestions by the Board of Trade that had been made and were being carried out was that in every emigrant ship, there should be a matron, as the noble Lord wished. The duties of the matron were that she should be present at meal times; should receive complaints, if any were made, that any single female passenger or young person did not get due allowance of food or proper attention; that she should play the part of an ever-present domestic inspector, her special office being to encourage decency and order, and suppress any indecorum among the single females. He was very glad to be able to say that in the Companies doing the best trade in emigrant passengers, these suggestions, or nearly all of them, had been or were being carried out most effectively and loyally, with great benefits to all concerned; and it was only fair that he should, as was their due, congratulate those Companies on the way in which they had received the Board's suggestions and had acted on them. With regard to the particular Line referred to, he had not had sufficient time to ascertain particulars; but he was able to say that the last of the Dominion Line ships which left England had carried out all the suggestions of the Board of Trade, and it was hoped from this that the Company intended to carry them out in all their ships.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord (Lord Sudeley) to the fact that no condition was required by the Board of Trade as to the existence of watertight compartments in emigrants ships, these being, he believed, necessary for the safety of the passengers in the event of an accident.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, he was unable to give the noble Earl any information; but the subject was one which, no doubt, deserved attention, and he would take care it should be brought before the Board.

IRELAND—THE LABOURERS' LEAGUE.—QUESTION.
EARL FORTESCUEasked the Lord Privy Seal, To what counties is there reasonable ground for believing that the Labourers' League, as distinguished from the Land League, has extended in Ireland, and what outrages during the last three months can be reasonably referred to it in the opinion of the Government?
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL), in reply, said, he had been able to obtain some information on this subject by telegraph from the Irish Government which had been supplied by the special Resident Magistrates of the different districts, each district embracing several counties. In the first district it appeared that in Carlow, Kildare, King's and Queen's Counties, attempts had been made to establish a Labourers' League, but so far it had shown practically no vitality. In the second district it had spread slowly in Longford, and had just shown itself in Cavan, Leitrim, and Westmeath. In the third district it was found not to exist in the county of Sligo, but it did in a slight degree in Mayo and Roscommon. In the fourth district it had shown itself in some parts of Clare and Limerick, but there was nothing there worthy of special report. As to the fifth district, there had been a few meetings in the counties of Cork and Kerry, but nothing had been done to disturb the public peace. The Labourers' League existed in a weak state in Kilkenny and Tipperary, and was strongest in Water-ford. He was not able to find that any outrage had been directly traced to this League; but some violent speeches had certainly been delivered, chiefly against farmers.

WELLESLEY BRIDGE (LIMERICK) BILL.
(The Lord Thurlow.)
WELLESLEY BRIDGE (LIMERICK) BILL.

  (NO. 207) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD THURLOW, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was a useful measure, which their Lordships would do well to pass.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Lord Thurlow.)
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Thurlow) that it would be very useful for facilitating communication between Limerick and the county of Clare. The matter had been always regarded as one of the greatest interest in the district, especially in the city of Limerick, although the inhabitants of the county would probably use the bridge very little. The work was one which ought to be proceeded with, and he was glad the Government had introduced the measure. There was one matter connected with the Bill to which he should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord. By Clause 2, which dealt with the proportions in which the money would be raised, it was provided that of the cost Clare County should pay three-eighths and Limerick City five-eighths. Why the cost should be thus unequally divided he could not understand.
  LORD THURLOWsaid, he had no doubt the matter would be taken into consideration, and put right by the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale) in Committee.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he was not aware that the Bill would come before him. It was a hybrid Bill, to which there was some slight objection; but it could be amended in Committee. From the Preamble of the Bill he saw that the original cost was £10,000, and that the sum had now been reduced to £7,076. He thought the Bill, as a whole, was rather carelessly drawn, and he hoped the noble Lord in charge of it (Lord Thurlow) would see that an improvement was effected.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed for Monday next.

THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked the Lord Privy Seal, Whether he can give
  742
  the House any details with regard to the alleged strike for increased wages which is said to have taken place among the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary? In putting this Question, he wished to observe that almost the only bright spot which was to be seen for the last two miserable years in the gloomy picture which Ireland presented was the unswerving loyalty to the Crown, very often under circumstances of great difficulty, exhibited by the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary; while the manner in which they had performed their difficult, arduous, and very often most irksome duties had won the respect and admiration of all honest men. It was, therefore, with feelings little short of dismay that he read the reports which had appeared in the newspapers of the discontent, if not disaffection, which had appeared in their ranks. He saw in a newspaper that morning a statement to the effect that the men in a certain district were so disgusted with the manner in which the Government had treated their mild demands, that they had come to the determination, if the Government did not at once take their grievances into consideration, to lay down their arms, and refuse to obey orders. If the report were true, nothing more startling had been heard of since the Indian Mutiny. He had no doubt, however, that it was a statement which was much exaggerated, and he trusted not only that the Government would be able to re-assure their Lordships on that point, but also that they would state that they were prepared to deal both fairly, fully, and generously with the question, and thus satisfy a body of men of whom it might well be said they were sans peur et sans reproche.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL), in reply, said, he was happy to be able to inform the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown) that the report that had appeared in the newspapers on this subject was greatly exaggerated. There was no reason to believe that the Royal Irish Constabulary had exceeded their legitimate rights in the manner in which they had urged their views upon the Government as to their position. It was perfectly true that they did think that their condition, in certain respects, ought to be improved, and some of the matters to which they

  743
  attached importance would be provided for out of the grant of £180,000 which was now on the point of being voted in the House of Commons. The remaining questions which they had raised were being carefully inquired into; and he might mention one gratifying circumstance which would show that the Royal Irish Constabulary was not an unpopular Force—that it was not looked upon in Ireland as a Force which it would be disadvantageous for any educated Irishman to belong to—the fact, namely, that the recruiting of the Constabulary for some months past had been going on in the most satisfactory way.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.