Sitting of 16 August 1883

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Essex County (Eastern Division), v. Colonel Samuel Ruggles-Brise, Chiltern Hundreds.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE Estimates—Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE, Votes 16, 30, 33, & 34; CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, and ART, Votes 3, 3A, 4, & 5.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Public Works Loans* [295]; Municipal Corporations (Borough Constables) [296]; Soldiers Pensions and Yeomanry Pay* [297].
First Reading—Contempts of Court* [300].
Second Reading—Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure [290]; Statute Law Revision* [291]; Trial of Lunatics [292].
Committee—Report—Local Government Board (Scotland) [251]; Post Office (Protection) [266–298]; Medals [188].
Withdrawn—Licensing Justices Disabilities Removal* [110].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  HARRISON'S ESTATE BILL [Lords].

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he did not propose to ask the House to take any further action against this Bill. He had protested, and he now renewed his protest, against the scandal—for it was a scandal—that in these days power should be given by the House of Commons to place free land in settlement for a term of 1,000 years. He had, however, been encouraged by the Prime Minister to hope that this would be the last Bill presented to the House of Commons for extending the
    708
    area of settled land which would be pressed in this way, without information or report, upon the House. He was glad to have reason to believe that not only would the Lord Chancellor be prepared to co-operate in order to relieve the House from these questionable transactions, but also that Lord Cairns would not be indisposed to lend his high influence and authority in the same direction and for the same object. For these reasons, although he could not but regard the Bill as a measure opposed to public policy, which, if it were duly informed, the House would refuse to pass, he also regarded it as a small hinge on which the great gates of reform had been made to move with a sound of opening. He would take an early opportunity of inquiring by what means these great authorities proposed to attain this object, and what recommendations they were prepared to make in reference to Bills of this nature being presented to this House. He thought he gathered from the Prime Minister that he was of opinion the case might be met by the passing of a new Standing Order directing the Chairman of Ways and Means, with the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker, to report to the House in future Sessions in the case of Private Estate Bills containing such provisions whether they included any proposal of which the House ought to be informed, and in regard to which there ought to be an inquiry. Under existing circumstances, when any Private Estate Bills of this character contained any provisions relative to the inclosure of land, the Chairman of Ways and Means was required to make a Report to the House. He thought there would be no difficulty, but, on the contrary, great advantage, if the Chairman of Ways and Means were required to make a Report to the House upon any provisions relating to the settlement of land. At all events, until some such change was made, he should feel it his duty to oppose the reading of any Private Estate Bill containing provisions for extending the area of settled land; and he would leave to those who supported it the responsibility of accepting a measure contrary to public policy.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DEATH OF AN EVICTED TENANT.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the death, through hardship, of an evicted tenant named John Bourke at Loughrea; if it is the fact that on the 8th July Mr. Jennings, Poor Law Guardian, waited on the relieving officer, ordered him to visit Bourke, and give him the necessary relief; whether the relieving officer did not attend to the case until July 16th leaving Bourke eight days on the roadside in the rain without food; whether, on the 14th July, Mr. Jennings sent the relieving officer a "red ticket;" but, nevertheless, the Union medical officer did not visit Bourke until the 16th July; whether the doctor only called three times within four weeks; whether the relieving officer only made one visit and never came near the man until after his death on the 5th August; whether, on the 3rd August the Loughrea Board of Guardians voted £2 to make Bourke's but habitable; whether the relieving officer never carried out the Board's orders; whether the Board also sent a nurse to attend Bourke, and on that evening the doctor ordered her to call at his house next day for the purpose of taking medicine to the dying man; whether, on complying, she could not find the doctor; whether his assistant ordered her to get linseed meal from the relieving officer for Bourke's wants; whether the officer refused to supply meal, meat, Or any nourishment for him; whether he will ascertain if the opinion prevails in the locality that Bourke's death was accelerated by the neglect of the local officials; and, what steps he intends to take in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the allegations with regard to the conduct of the doctor and the relieving officer in this case are of so serious a character that the Local Government Board have felt it necessary to order an inquiry on oath to be held by their Inspector. Pending the result of that inquiry, I cannot answer these Questions. I may say at once, however, that John Bourke was not an evicted tenant, but a stone-cutter,
  710
  who was unable to work owing to an accident to his wrist,

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— AUTHORIZED SCHOOL BOOKS.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is on the list of books sold by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to the teachers and pupils of their schools a work entitled "Easy Lessons in English Grammar, by Lionel Edwardes;" whether Lionel Edwardes is a real or an assumed name; and, whether the junior secretary to the Board, John E. Sheridan, Esq., has had any share in the preparation or publication of the book in question?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the work referred to is on the list of books sanctioned, but not published, by the Commissioners of National Education. The author is Mr. Sheridan, one of the Secretaries to the Board, who published the book under an assumed name, lest there should be any appearance of his superiors having been influenced in favour of the book by the fact of his official connection with the Department. So closely was the incognito preserved during the last six years that the authorship of the book was not known by those in authority in the Department until the notice of this Question appeared on the Paper.

ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—RESERVED RENTS.
MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Jasper Robert Joly, of 38, Rathmines Road, Dublin, in the leases granted to his tenants has reserved rents sixty per cent. and over in excess of the rents actually paid, this excess being in the nature of a penalty; whether the said J. R. Joly, when joining with Noon and several others of his tenants in making applications under the Arrears Act, applied for and was paid the penalties in addition to the ordinary rent; and, if so, what is the amount paid to him in respect thereof; and, whether the Act contains any provision for the payment of penalties to landlords; and, if not, what steps will be taken for their recovery?
MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, he had received a telegram from the

711
Land Commissioners, stating that they had disposed of the case on the evidence adduced before them, and that they had no knowledge of the circumstances mentioned in the Question?
MR. MOLLOYsaid, he was ready to place the documents on the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DEATH FROM WANT.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, "Whether the police at Kilmoree, county Mayo, recently received information that a girl named Bridget Raftrey had been dead for two days previous at a place called Arbour; whether they found her lying naked on the floor of a but, having apparently perished of want; whether the relieving officer of the district was previously made aware of the girl's condition, and, although passing the house, never called until after her death; and, if he will inquire into the conduct of the relieving officer, and obtain a report on the case?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the girl referred to was a servant, who, while living alone in the house of her employer—he being in England and his wife ill of fever in hospital—was attacked with fever. The police found her lying on the floor as stated. They at first believed her to be dead, and so informed the relieving officer. The people of the village would not go near her, fearing infection; but the police acted with great humanity, and did what they could for her. As soon as they discovered that she was not dead, but in a state of coma, they sent word to the relieving officer, who lived seven miles off. Whether, after this, there was any culpable delay on the part of the relieving officer, or in the provision of a nurse, is, I think, a matter calling for further inquiry, which I have directed to be at once made.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—APPOINTMENT OF POLICE SURGEON AT WATERFORD.
MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the recent appointment of the police surgeon at Waterford was made on the recommendation of the county inspector for Waterford; whether that
712
officer, when recommending the gentleman who at present holds the appointment, was aware of the rule that such appointments are given to dispensary medical officers, unless there is good reason to the contrary; whether he was also aware that one of the medical officers of Waterford Dispensary is assistant surgeon to the Leper Hospital, in which all constabulary cases, other than fever cases, are treated; whether he informed the Inspector General of the reasons on account of which he was unable to recommend either of the Water-ford Dispensary medical officers; and, if so, whether there is any objection to state those reasons to the House; and, how long the county inspector for Water-ford has been stationed there?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, as I have already stated in reply to a former Question, the rule under which these appointments are given to dispensary doctors is not an invariable one; and it has not heretofore been observed in Waterford and some other large towns. Dr. Connolly's appointment was made on the recommendation of the county inspector, who has been stationed at Waterford for 11 months. He was quite aware of the connection of one of the dispensary doctors with the Leper Hospital. It is not a fact, however, that all constabulary cases, other than fever cases, are treated in that institution. Very few are, as most cases are treated in barracks, if slight, or sent to St. Stephen's Hospital, Dublin, if serious. It does not appear to have been a question of being unable to recommend the dispensary doctors; but of what appointment would be for the greatest advantage to the constabulary. The county inspector thought it best to have the men all under the care of one surgeon, especially as he held the appointment of physician to the fever hospital, where so many of the men are from time to time treated.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CASE OF P. FALLON.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that P. Fallon, tenant of Captain Pierce, of Box-borough, county Galway, who was evicted in October 1881, has been sent to prison ten times for trespassing since that date; whether, some three months ago, the landlord and the bailiffs tore

713
down Fallon's house; whether, on a shed being erected on the site of the tumbled house, the landlord came and set fire to it, burning the clothing of the children, and destroying a considerable amount of potatoes; whether, on the shed being re-erected, the landlord served Fallon with no less than eight summonses, and had him again imprisoned; whether Fallon is at present undergoing punishment; whether, about a fortnight ago, the Police arrested Fallon's wife, and brought her before a magistrate, who was playing lawn tennis with the landlord at the time, and had her sent to prison, where she since remains; whether he can say for what offence Mrs. Fallon was conveyed to gaol; whether the magistrate could legally hold a Court under the circumstances described; whether Mrs. Fallon's five children, all of whom are of tender years, are now living in the shed, separated from their father and mother, and wanting clothes and food; whether Fallon offered the landlord the rent in Court without effect; and, whether, as the evicted people decline to go into the workhouse, and have no other home but the shed in question, he can give instructions to the Police to abstain from further prosecuting them; if not, can he suggest any refuge for such evicted families?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the facts appear to be stated with substantial accuracy. Fallon was evicted in September, 1880—not 1881, as stated—the period of redemption expired, and he did not redeem; but ho, and subsequently his wife, appears since to have acted with persistent illegality in asserting a right which he does not possess. I have nothing before me to show that either the landlord or the magistrate acted illegally. If any wrong has been done, the Courts are open. Fallon appears to have money, as he offered the rent to the landlord. The attention of the relieving officer has been drawn to the children.
MR. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated that the magistrate was playing lawn tennis with the landlord who took possession at the time he sent this woman to gaol. I would like to know whether he thinks that is a proper way to hold a Court?
MR. TREVELYAN: I stated that the woman was sent to prison for having
714
acted with persistent illegality, and I am informed that the decision of the magistrate was not illegal.
MR. HEALY: I would like to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, whether it is usual for persons in Ireland to be brought before magistrates who are engaged in amusing themselves in playing lawn tennis with the prosecutors in the case?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): Of course, I cannot state whether it is usual or not. All I can say is, that it is lawful for a magistrate to commit outside Petty Sessions Court.
MR. HEALY: I beg to give Notice that I will ask the Chief Secretary, on Monday, whether he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to this method of holding a Court; and, whether the Lord Chancellor considers it decent for the committing magistrate to be engaged at the time in playing lawn tennis with the prosecuting landlord?
MR. HARRINGTONasked, whether it was not necessary that two magistrates should have been present when this woman was committed?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)was understood to say that it was not.

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— SITTINGS OF THE COURT (FERMANAGH) (SUB-COMMISSIONERS).
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that great inconvenience is caused by the refusal of the Sub-Commissioners to hold a Land Court in Derrygonnelly, county Fermanagh, as the tenant farmers have to travel ten to sixteen miles on foot with their witnesses to Enniskillen; whether, on the 23rd April, when a court was about to be held there, the landlord's solicitors objected, alleging that fever prevailed; whether a subsequent application was made on the 16th July, and refused; whether as the area of the Derrygonnelly Petty Sessions District is over 43,000 acres, with a population of about 6,000, and the town possesses a courthouse and hotel accommodation, a Commission can in future sit in that place; and, whether it is the fact that, in places of no larger size in Fermanagh, such as Irvinestown, Beleek, and Lisnaskea, Commission Courts are held?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Chairman of the Sub-Commission writes as follows:—
"The Assistant Commissioners did not refuse to hold a Land Court at Derrygonnelly. On the contrary, I stated that we were anxious to comply with the application of the tenants, and willing to attend there on any day convenient to the parties. It was then urged by several solicitors, acting, as I understood, on behalf of landlords and tenants, that fever prevailed. A letter from the district medical officer to the same effect was produced in Court, and the professional gentlemen engaged in the cases declined to incur the risk of attending at Derrygonnelly with their clients and witnesses. Under these circumstances, and in order to save the tenants inconvenience and expense, we fixed a day for the hearing of cases from the Derrygonnnelly district, and they were disposed of on the day appointed. No subsequent application was made on the 16th of July, or on any other day."
Sittings of the Sub-Commission had been held, as stated in the Question, at Irvinestown, Beleek, and Lisnaskea.

INDIA—LAND ASSESSMENT.
MR. WOODALLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can state approximately the extent of land in British India which has been re-assessed since the expiry of the last thirty years' settlement; whether the general result of the re-assessment has been greatly to increase the Government demand as compared with the demand under the former settlement; and, if so, what is the average percentage of increase; whether there was enacted in the Bombay Presidency in 1879 a new Land Revenue Code, with much more stringent provisions against tenants than the Code of 1827 formerly in force; whether it is the case that a tenant can now be taxed in excess of the amount of his fixed assessment on any improvements he may make which are of the nature of availing of any natural advantage, and whether this proviso subjects him to a largely increased land tax on any fields which he may irrigate by water from a well dug entirely at his own cost; whether the Code of 1879 contains a provision enabling the British Revenue Authorities not only to sell up a defaulting cultivator in order to obtain payment of arrears, but to confiscate the holding, with all its produce, for a similar purpose, irrespective of how much its value may exceed the amount of the said arrears; and, if such provision
716
exists, can he state the number of instances in which it has been enforced; and, whether he will lay upon the Table copies of the Code of 1879, and of the former one which it superseded?
MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the extent of land in British India which has been re-assessed since the expiration of the last 30 years' settlement is approximately 135,000 square miles. The average percentage increase of assessment effected by the revisions is about—in the North-West Provinces, 14 per cent; in the Punjaub, 7 per cent; and in Bombay, 32 per cent. Some explanation of these enhancements may be necessary. In Upper India—that is, the North-West Provinces and the Punjaub—the assessment is a proportion of the rental value of the estate. Under the expired settlements this proportion was two-thirds. Under the revised settlements it is half of the rental value. But the rental has increased so much that the lower proportion now yields more revenue than the higher proportion yielded formerly. There are three reasons for this increase—extension of cultivation, rise of prices, and improvements, such as canals made by Government. In the Bombay Dec-can, where the landowners hold direct from Government, the original settlement, made about 1840, reduced the old Native assessments nearly 50 per cent. or from about 1 rupee to about 8 annas an acre. The latter assessment was then equal to about 15 per cent of the value of the produce. The revised assessment is equal to about 12 per cent. so that the real incidence of the new settlement is lighter than that of the original settlement when introduced. Bombay Act 5 of 1879 consolidated and amended the Land Revenue Law in force at that time. The greater part of the Code of 1827 relating to land had already been repealed. Act 5 did not enact more stringent provisions against tenants; the cultivators of Bombay are not tenants, but proprietors under Government, and their legal position has been greatly improved since 1827. A Bombay landholder cannot be taxed on his own improvements, nor, if he digs a well, can his assessment be increased on that account, either during the currency, or on the expiration of the settlement. The case is contained in Sections 106–107 of Act 5. By Section 153 of Act 5, land, the revenue of which is in arrear, is

717
liable to forfeiture and sale to realize the amount of arrear. Should the proceeds exceed the arrear the balance is credited to the defaulter. There is no objection to present a copy of the Bombay Revenue Code, 1879; but I cannot lay on the Table the law which is superseded, as it is contained in, I think, 19 separate enactments.

PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)— SEWER VENTILATION.
MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the exhalations which often proceed from the ventilators of the sewers in the roadway of the streets of London, some being in the immediate neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament; whether he will call upon the local authority to mitigate this evil, especially during the summer and autumn months; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the possibility of carrying such ventilation above the street level by means of shafts, so as to avoid poisoning the air to the danger of foot passengers and the inhabitants generally?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, that it was the duty of the local authority, generally speaking, to attend to the ventilation of sewers, and in London that authority was the Vestries and District Boards; but the sewers themselves were under the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works. With regard to the other inquiry as to the formation of ventilating shafts, the matter had been repeatedly considered by the authorities; but scientific opinions were rather opposed to the scheme. There was a great danger lest, in altering the system of ordinary traps, sewer gas should escape into dwelling-houses, and so cause a more serious danger than that which now existed. Under these circumstances, no system of shaft ventilation had yet been devised.
MR. J. G. TALBOT: Has the attention of the Local Government Board been directed to the experiments with ventilating shafts at Ryde, Isle of Wight? I understand the authorities there are much in favour of it.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I will make inquiries into the subject.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that scientists are opposed to the system of pipes running
718
above the heights of the houses that is adopted in a great many houses?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No; but I am not aware that the system of shafts is recommended for the ventilation of sewers.

THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps, if any, Her Majesty's Government have taken, or propose to take, to prevent any further progress being made during the Recess in the construction of the proposed Channel Tunnel by the promoters of that scheme?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, in the course of the legal proceedings instituted against the Company in August, 1882, they undertook not to work the boring machine, except with the written permission of the Board of Trade. That undertaking still exists, and I propose to satisfy myself from time to time it is strictly observed.

EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— MURDER OF PROFESSOR PALMER AND OTHERS.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to a paragraph in the "Standard" of 13th August, in the following words:—"
"Cairo, Sunday Night.
"Another instance of official incompetence is supplied by the fact that five men and women are still detained in prison at Suez in connection with the murder of Professor Palmer, although the whole matter was reported to have been officially disposed of at the recent trial, and in spite of the repeated representations that have been made as to the futility of retaining them;"
and, whether such statement is correct; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to obtain the liberation of these persons?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the persons in prison at Suez are the family of Hassan Abu Mershid, who, as stated in the Correspondence laid before Parliament, was one of the principals in the murder of Professor Palmer and his party. They are detained as hostages. Her Majesty's Government are in communication with Sir Edward Malet on the subject.
MR. O'KELLY: Would the noble Lord state whether, in this case of so-

719
called murder Professor Palmer was not acting the part of a spy?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That Question has no reference at all to the Question on the Paper.
MR. O'KELLY: I give Notice that I shall ask the Question on Monday.

ARTIZANS AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS IMPROVEMENT ACTS—CIRCULAR OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
MR. FRANCIS BUXTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether any circular has recently been issued to town councils or other local authorities, calling attention to the provisions of the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Acts, and urging the destruction, when necessary, of unsanitary dwellings; whether he can inform the House generally of the replies received to this circular; and, whether he will lay the circular itself upon the Table of the House?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, that the Local Government Board, on the 21st of July last, addressed a letter to the urban sanitary authorities calling attention to the Acts mentioned, but had not received any communication from local authorities showing that it was their intention to destroy unsanitary dwellings. He was quite willing to lay a copy of the Circular upon the Table.

PUBLIC HEALTH—VACCINATION.
MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the cases of five children now suffering severely at Deptford from syphilis communicated by vaccination from one other child; and, whether a public inquiry into these and any other cases in the neighbourhood will be directed?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Local Government Board have already caused inquiry to be made in this matter. The Board are informed that there is not the smallest reason for saying that these children had syphilis. The facts are that four, not five, children vaccinated with 17 others, from one vaccinifer, got more or less of a common skin disease, known as eczema, afterwards. Each of the four children lived in the state of squalor that most favours the production of eczema. The other 17 children remained well. There appears to the
720
Board to be no ground for any further inquiry.
MR. HOPWOOD: Do I understand that a public inquiry into these cases is refused?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: They have been inquired into by an Inspector. I am not aware that there is any reason to doubt the professional opinion.
MR. HOPWOOD: There is the fact that the public officer of the Board of Guardians certifies that it is syphilis?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: It would be better that Notice should be given of any further Question.
MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware of the deaths of two children in Shoreditch, as their parents allege, from vaccination, viz. Charles James Kerridge, aged five months, vaccinated June 27th, became ill with eruptions over his body, and died July 13th; and Florence Edith Howden, vaccinated on 15th April, became ill in a few days with sores and abscesses, from which she never recovered, but died on July 13th; and, whether he will direct a thorough inquiry into these cases?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Sir, the Board have caused inquiry to be made as to the cases of the two children referred to. Both children died of diarrhœa, and the one ease had nothing whatever to do with the other. The mother of the child Kerridge, the Board are informed, has no idea of attributing the death to vaccination. The child had no eruption. The child Howden was weakly at the customary time of vaccination, and the vaccination was deferred until the child was eight months old. It had some eruption afterwards; but there were no abscesses. Its death was caused by diarrhœa three months later. The medical practitioner who attended it is reported to have said that the lymph had to do with the child's subsequent illness; but he denies that he said anything of the kind. He had a great deal of diarrhœa in his practice at the time. Inquiry was made as to others vaccinated from the same vaccinifers, and no irregularities could be heard of.
MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the sad casualties alleged to have attended vaccination, he has considered the appeal to him of

721
J. A. Petvin, of the Axbridge Union, again summoned in respect of the non-vaccination of a child born in 1879, in respect of which he was three times summoned in 1882, twice convicted in full penalties and paid three sets of costs; and, whether he will advise the guardians that such repeated persecutions are opposed to the views of the Board expressed in its letter to the Evesham Guardians?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: A copy of the Evesham letter has been sent to the Guardians of the Axbridge Union.

FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—BUNNATROOHAN PIER.
MR. LEAasked the Secretary to the Treasury, How much, out of the last money granted for Bunnatroohan Pier and Harbour (£980 for deepening the harbour and providing a boat slip) has been expended—1st. On actual labour; 2nd, On superintendence by clerk of works and overseer; 3rd. On materials; when this work was commenced, and when it is expected to be completed; if, before it is transferred to the county, it will be ascertained by the Board of Works that the paving is not likely to be torn up again by the first heavy sea, as on a former occasion; if the county surveyor's report on the stability of the work will be obtained before the county is saddled with it; and, if it be a fact that the boat slip is perfectly useless, and that the fishermen are worse off than ever for a convenient place to haul up their boats, it being nearly practically impossible for boats to be hauled by the slip recently made; and, if any steps will be taken to have it improved?
MR COURTNEY: Sir, this work will have cost £1,074, of which £680 goes in labour, £219 in superintendence, and £213 in materials. It was commenced in July, 1881, and will be finished this autumn, the slowness of the progress being due to the fact that the work to be done lies below high water mark. The decision to construct this boat-slip was made and the design for it settled by the Joint Fishery Piers Committee, and the work has been carried out in a most substantial manner. There appears to be no reason for doubting the correctness of the Committee's judgment, or for having a further and unprecedented survey made before it is dealt
722
with, as directed by the Fishery Piers Act.

ARMY (INDIA)—ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.
MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State for India intends to direct an inquiry into the grievances of the India Medical Service with a view to meet some of the expectations with which candidates were induced to enter it, and to restore some contentment to its ranks?
MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, I have several times explained the cause of there being a temporary excess of medical officers who do not hold the substantive appointments which command the higher rates of pay—the grievance to which I understand the right hon. and learned Member refers—and I have, at the same time, explained how the difficulty is being met. It is not probable that any inquiry could add to the Secretary of State's information on the subject; and it is not proposed to make any change in the existing system by which officers succeed to substantive medical charges in India.
MR. GIBSON: I give Notice that early next Session I shall call attention to the subject unless a remedy be applied in the meantime.

TURKEY (ASIATIC PROVINCES)— GOVERNORSHIP OF THE LEBANON— RUSTEM PASHA.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can lay upon the Table copies of any Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and Foreign Governments relative to the removal of Rustem Pasha from the Governorship of the Lebanon and the appointment of his successor?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, there will be no objection to lay the Correspondence before Parliament.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CONVICTION AT LIMERICK.
MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the decision of the County Court Judge at Limerick on July 3rd last, in the case of the man Sheehan, sentenced on April 13th 1883 to two months' imprisonment

723
at the instance of a person named M'Grath, in which he reversed the sentence passed by the two special resident magistrates, Messrs. Evanson and Irwan; if the original conviction was obtained on the evidence of M'Grath and his employer, a Mr. Millane, and, after a careful sifting of their evidence, has been reversed by the County Court Judge; whether any prosecution for perjury is to be instituted against M'Grath and his accomplices; and, whether any money has been given to them by the Crown for their original testimony in the case, and if he would name the parties to whom such payments were made?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I do not think this is a matter calling for notice on the part of the Executive. The case was decided by the magistrates on the evidence before them. At the hearing of the appeal some additional witnesses were produced for the defence. The evidence was conflicting, and the County Court Judge gave the accused the benefit of the doubt; but he did not impute perjury to any witness for the Crown. No money was given to the witnesses for their evidence.

AFGHANISTAN—THE SUBSIDY TO THE AMEER.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will inquire if the Indian Government have any information regarding the presence of a Russian agent in Afghanistan, his friendly reception by the Governor of Kabul, and his alleged interview with the Amir; whether he still adheres to his statement that an annual subsidy of £120,000 has been granted to the Amir without any of the conditions to secure British influence and control upon which previous Amirs have been subsidised; and, what supplies of arms and ammunition have been given to the Amir Abdurrahman since 1880?
MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the Indian Government have received information regarding the presence of a Russian merchant, a Mahomedan by religion, in Afghanistan, who had an interview with the Ameer. No importance is attached to the incident by the Government. The hon. Member for Eye is mistaken in thinking that I stated that the subsidy of 12 lakhs had been granted—
724
"Without any of the conditions to secure British influence and control upon which previous Ameers had been subsidized."
When Abdurrahman was recognized by us as Ameer of Afghanistan in 1880 an understanding was entered into that he should follow the advice of the British Government in regard to his external relations. The Ameer has so far acted in conformity with that understanding; and, in order to strengthen his position, the Government of India have decided to give him one lakh of rupees a-month. The gifts of arms to the Ameer up to 1882 are described in Return No. 18 of 1882. Since then the Ameer has received 1,500 muzzle-loading rifles, 1,000 carbines, 8,274 cartridges for ordnance, 1,778 shells, 3,604 shot, and 996,189 small-arm cartridges.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, there was a strange contradiction between the answer which the hon. Gentleman had given to him on Monday on the same subject and that he had now given to the hon. Member for Eye. The House was now given to understand that the Ameer had agreed to render some service in consideration of his subsidy; but what he wished to know was, whether the engagement to that effect had been reduced to writing, and embodied in a Treaty, or whether it was merely a verbal understanding?
MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the answer I have given to-day is altogether consistent with the answer I gave the other day. There is no reiteration of the understanding which has been entered into with the Ameer; it was entered into in 1880, and it covers all subsequent transactions.
MR. O'KELLY: Was the understanding evidenced by any written document?
MR. J. K. CROSS: No, Sir; it was entered into between our Agent and the Ameer himself.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Is it a verbal understanding, or one of a more solemn nature?
An hon. MEMBER: Is it in writing?
MR. J. K. CROSS: Will the hon. Member kindly give Notice of the Question?
MR. ONSLOW: Was the Secretary of State for India consulted in this matter before the Viceroy agreed to give this allowance; and will Papers be produced?
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Are we to understand that there is no written Treaty or document in existence which binds the Ameer to the conditions the hon. Gentleman has just referred to?
MR. J. K. CROSS: Notice had better be given of a Question.
MR. O'KELLY: Is the allowance a permanent one, or is it given for a length of time?
MR. J. K. CROSS: I have already stated it is given from month to month.
MR. ONSLOW: Can the hon. Gentleman answer my Question now, whether Papers will be produced?
MR. J. K. CROSS: No, Sir.

LAND COMMISSION COURT, DUBLIN— DECISIONS—MR. JUSTICE O'HAGAN.
MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a decision made by Mr. Justice O'Hagan, at the Land Commission Court, Dublin, on January 19th, 1883, as follows:—
"Mr. Hugh O'Doherty said he appeared on behalf of a number of poor tenants in Donegal and Leitrim, whose rents had been judicially fixed, but who had appealed from the decision of the Sub-Commissioners. The appeals were very far down on the list, and the tenants had absolutely refused to pay the judicial rents, and wanted to know from the Court what rent they should pay;
"Mr. Justice O'Hagan.—They must pay the old rent;
"Mr. O'Doherty.—The cases are very far down on the list;
"Mr. Justice O'Hagan.—They must take their turn;"
if any subsequent decision has been given nullifying that of Mr. Justice O'Hagan; and, if he is aware that the landlords throughout Ireland continue to demand the old rents?
COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can explain the apparent discrepancy between the ruling of Mr. Justice O'Hagan, on the 19th of January last—
"Land Commission Court,
"Dublin, Friday, January 19, 1883.
"Mr. Hugh O'Doherty said he appeared on behalf of a number of poor tenants in Donegal and Leitrim whose rents had been judicially fixed, but who had appealed from the decision of the Sub-Commissioners. The appeals were very far down on the list, and the tenants had absolutely refused to pay the judicial rents, and wanted to know from the Court what rent they should pay;
"Mr. Justice O'Hagan.—They must pay the old rent;
726
"Mr. O'Doherty.—The cases are very far down on the list;
"Mr. Justice O'Hagan.—They must take their turn;"
and the statement made by himself that the judicial rent only could be recovered?
MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Justice O'Hagan states distinctly that he never made such a statement as is attributed to him in the report quoted from. The Land Commissioners have in very numerous cases stated, in reply to inquiries, both to landlords and tenants, that, in their opinion, the rent fixed by a Sub-Commission is in force until varied on rehearing.
MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not caught the point of the Questions. Supposing the old rent to be £12, and that the Sub-Commissioners reduced it to £7, but that it was raised, on appeal, to £10, what rent was the tenant entitled to pay, the judicial rent or the old rent, in the interval of appeal?
[No answer was given.]
MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary, in connection with this subject, whether he was aware that landlords continue to demand the old rents, that this judgment of Mr. Justice O'Hagan had been passing current through the country as good, and that the old rents were extracted, though illegal?
MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Justice O'Hagan is not responsible for the blunders in newspapers; but I am glad to have had this public opportunity of putting the public mind at rest on this question.
MR. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state to Mr. Justice O'Hagan that it would greatly convenience the public if some definite statement were made by the Land Commissioners as to whether it is the old rents or the new rents that are to be paid pending the hearing of appeals?

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—THE SLIGO ELECTION—ALLEGED INTIMIDATION.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Constable O'Rourke, Ballintogher, Sligo, attempted to intimidate the supporters of the National candidate for the existing vacancy in the Parliamentary representation of the county, by having

727
at the public meeting in Sligo town, on Sunday last, called aside a young man named James Cawley, Ballymote, seizing him by the shoulder, and asking his name and business, and "what brought him there;" whether the constable noted Mr. Cawley's replies in writing, and also took the names of all bandsmen at the meeting; whether O'Rourke has been censured before for his officiousness; and, if the Government approve O'Rourke's conduct? He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he has seen the report in the newspapers, that the proposer and seconder of the National candidate at Sligo, with their assenters, were hustled out of the Grand Jury room by the police; and, if he has seen the report, whether he has put any question to the police on the subject?
MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that he regretted to say he had not seen the report. With regard to the first Question, according to the Report he had received, Constable O'Rourke was not in Sligo at all on the day named. While on duty at Ballintogher, he saw a post car with several passengers stop at a public-house. It being Sunday, he went to them to ascertain if they were bonâ fide travellers. He did not seize anyone by the shoulders; he did not ask anyone his name. He (Mr. Trevelyan) was informed that O'Rourke was an excellent policeman, and it was not the case that he had been censured for officiousness.

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—JUDICIAL RENTS (MOHILL).
MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether two of the Sub-Commissioners appointed for the counties Roscommon, Sligo, and Leitrim, namely, Messrs. Morrison and Henston, did on the 11th July last in proceeding to visit the farm of Mr. John Waiters, who had an application for the fixing of a fair rent heard at the sitting of their Sub-Commission in Carrick-on-Shannon, drive to the farm in the trap of the landlord, Mr. C. C. B. Whyte, D.L., Hatly Manor, in company with Mr. Whyte and his bailiff; whether in the decisions delivered at Mohill subsequently the Sub-Commissioners fixed the judicial rent in this case at the old rent; and, whether
728
a competent valuer swore that the old rent was a rack rent?
MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed, Sir, that it is the case that Messrs. Morrison and Henston drove to the farm of Mr. John Watters, as stated, in Mr. Whyte's trap, and that they did so to save time, their own car having been sent to a point nearly a mile off. The Sub-Commission deemed it just, on the evidence adduced, to leave the rent unchanged. It had been paid for 27 years before. With regard to this, the Chairman of the Sub-Commission—who is not one of the gentlemen named in the Question—telegraphs to me as follows:—
"I took a prominent part in fixing the rent, and share responsibility with my colleagues. I consider any other judgment would have been grossly unjust."
MR. O'KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether the tenant had any means of avoiding paying this rent for 27 years; and also whether he approves of the conduct of the Sub-Commissioners in using the cars of landlords when going to fix rents; and whether it is not possible, in case their own car breaks down, for them to supply themselves with the car of some third party?
MR. TREVELYANsaid, there were about 100 Sub-Commissioners employed, and he was afraid he could not answer such a Question off-hand.

PENSIONS TO STATE SERVANTS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
MR. CAINEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Foreign Office has among its records any information relative to the systems for providing pensions for State servants existing in various Foreign Countries; if not, will it be convenient to collect such information, and lay it upon the Table of the House?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the Foreign Office does not possess the information for which my hon. Friend asks; but I shall be glad to communicate with him privately on the subject, and, if possible, the particulars which he requires shall be obtained.

LAW AND POLICE—REPORTED DOG FIGHT AT BLACKBURN.
MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any steps are being taken

729
for the prosecution of the persons who arranged and carried out the dog fight which took place near Blackburn on Sunday week, the details of which have appeared in most of the public journals?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the hon. Member will observe that in order to a prosecution it is necessary that there should be an offence and an offender; and, with reference to this particular Question, in order to proceedings being taken, it is necessary that there should be a dog fight. It is true, as the hon. Member says, that details have appeared in the public journals; but, as I have before observed to this House, these heartrending incidents are of a romantic character. They are really works of fiction, and a dog fight is a favourite subject. I have inquired into the case, and here is the telegraphic answer I received—
"Referring to your letter of the 15th, a dog fight near Blackburn was reported in the local newspapers on the 8th instant; but a careful police inquiry, in conjunction with the officer of the Royal Humane Society, does not confirm the report. I believe no such fight occurred."
Several Questions in this House would be saved, and a waste of good sympathy avoided, if people would assume, when they read these stories, that they were not true.
MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman apply the same rule to information about Ireland published in the English newspapers?
MR. HEALY: Especially with regard to Irish outrages?
MR. HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whether, in reference to the Irish Members, he does not act on information coming from American newspapers, which may be also fiction?
MR. O'BRIEN: I also wish to ask him, whether he assumes that every story of Irish crime in the English newspapers is not true?
[No replies.]

THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE—SIR HARRY PARKES.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, when the offer was made to Sir H. Parkes to be promoted to the office of Her Majesty's Minister
730
in China, he was informed before accepting it that the salary of the office was to be reduced, or whether he was so informed only after he had accepted it?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir Harry Parkes was so informed before he accepted the appointment.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Was a similar notification given to Sir John Lumley?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper, I think.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Then I give Notice of the Question for Monday.

THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME— OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.
SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Secretary of State for War, If the "Memorandum with reference to the proposed Tunnel between England and France," stated to be under date of 3rd March 1875, now printed and circulated, was the foundation of the Letter from the War Office to the Treasury (published in the Blue Book on the Channel Tunnel), dated 13th March 1875; whether there are no other Documents, Letters, or Minutes relating to the Memorandum dated 3rd March 1875; and, if he will deposit in the Library, for the inspection of Members, the original Draft (with the official corrections) of the Letter from the War Office to the Treasury (signed by Colonel Stanley) of the 13th March 1875?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the Memorandum of March 3 and the draft of the letter of March 13, 1875, were written at the same time; but one can scarcely be said to have been the foundation of the other. There are Minutes having reference to the Memorandum and Letter; but they, with the draft, are confidential documents, which cannot be laid before Parliament.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SUTTON SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION.
MR. ONSLOW (for Sir TREVOR LAWRENCE)asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction was felt and expressed at the hours of polling, ten till five, fixed at the election of a School Board at Sutton on 9th March; and, whether,

731
since these are the only hours which the returning officer could have fixed under the Order in Council of 3rd October 1873, and the fixing of these hours practically resulted in disfranchising a large portion of the ratepayers, who, being engaged in business in London, have to leave Sutton before ten and do not return until after five, any steps can be taken to obviate the recurrence of this state of things?
MR. MUNDELLA: The school board election at Sutton was regulated by the same Order, which has been in operation for more than 10 years, and to which no substantial objection has been made. The hours of polling are fixed at the discretion of the Returning Officer, the only restriction being that the poll must be open for seven hours between 8 A.M. and 8 P.M. It is not, therefore, correct to say that the poll must be between 10 and 5, or that the Order in Council was the cause of the inconvenience complained of.

ARMY—OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN STAFF CORPS AND REGIMENTS OF THE LINE—CONDITIONS OF SERVICE.
MR. ONSLOW (for Sir TREVOR LAWRENCE)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that Officers of British Line Regiments get their captaincies and majorities in about nine and sixteen years respectively, while Officers of the Indian Staff Corps do not attain to those ranks until twelve and twenty years; and, whether, as Indian Officers have to serve under very trying conditions as to climate and other circumstances, he is prepared to recommend that they shall be placed on terms of equality, in regard to promotion, with British Officers?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said the conditions of the service of officers of the Indian Staff Corps, and of officers of British Line Regiments, differed in so many important particulars that it was impossible to apply the same rule to both classes. It was true that the Indian officers had to serve a longer time in order to attain their captaincies and majorities than the British Line officers; but, on the other hand, the former were, in respect to compulsory retirement and other matters, placed at a distinct advantage over the latter.

ARMY—THE EGYPTIAN WAR MEDAL.
MR. ONSLOW (for Sir TREVOR LAWRENCE)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Egyptian War Medal has been already distributed to all the British troops entitled to it, and when it will be distributed to the Indian troops who served with them; whether it is the case that the authorities in India concerned in this matter are still engaged in settling differences as to the pattern of the paper on which the Medal Rolls are to be submitted; and, whether, inasmuch as the Afghan Medal for the campaign of 1879–80 was only distributed to Indian troops this year, he will take steps to see that the Egyptian Medal is distributed to them without unnecessary delay?
MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the preparation of medal rolls requires great care, and is necessarily a work of time. Those for Egypt have been nearly all received, and the medals have either been already despatched, or are under immediate despatch. There is no reason to suppose that there will be any delay in their distribution.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE QUEEN'S COUNTY.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the establishment of Constabulary credited to the Queen's County has been below the proper establishment by 4 in January 1882; 7 in February; 8 in March, April, May, and June; 12 in July; 10 in August; 8 in September, October, and November; and 9 in December; and a sum of £1,055 17 s. 6d. has been charged to that county at large for extra Constabulary, besides a sum of £20 3s. 7d. on account of additional Constabulary in districts proclaimed under the 18th section of "The Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, 1882;" and, whether he will take steps to see that the amount which represents the vacancies shall be re-credited to the county?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the number of men of the Parliamentary quota of Constabulary for Queen's County actually serving at the time stated was less by the numbers mentioned than the full number authorized to be employed as the ordinary force of the county. It is obvious that the effective strength of

733
any trained and disciplined force must always be less than the full authorized number of such force by the number in training at the depôt to supply the waste to which every force is subject. It is, therefore, not correct to describe the force of a county as below the proper establishment when the full number authorized to be enrolled for such county is not effective. Recognizing these facts, provision has been made by Section 14 of 29 & 30 Vict., c. 103, that when, as in the case of Queen's County, an extra force is employed, the vacancies shall be apportioned rateably between the Parliamentary quota and the extra force, and the proportion of vacancies proper to the latter deducted when making the charge against the county. This provision has been fully acted on in preparing the charge of £10,055 payable by the Queen's County; and the necessary information showing that this has been done was duly forwarded to the Secretary of the Grand Jury for the information of the ratepayers at Presentment Sessions. Any further allowance in respect of the vacancies proper to that portion of the force for which no charge is made would be illegal.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether it was not a fact that by reason of these vacancies there would be a saving in the Constabulary to the Imperial Exchequer, while there would be an extra charge for police to the Queen's County?
COLONEL KING-HARMANasked, if the force of men in training at the depot was divided pro rata amongst all the counties?
MR. TREVELYAN: The story is an old one—familiar, I think, to a good many Members of the House—that the force divided rateably between the ordinary and the extraordinary force, and the part allotted to the extraordinary force, is deducted from the sum which the county has to pay.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question?
MR. TREVELYAN: If the men were not at depôt, but were always permanently in the county, the number of extra police employed would be so much less; but that is not a system authorized by law.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether
734
it is the fact, honestly and straightforwardly speaking, that these vacancies are caused by men being in the depôt, and are not absolute vacancies in the force?
MR. O'KELLYwas understood to ask whether it did not happen that under the system as explained by the right hon. Gentleman two or three counties had to pay for the same numbers?
MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would answer the Question if Notice were given. He should be unwilling to answer it without Notice, because the number at the depôt was sometimes larger and sometimes smaller than the regulation.
COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the establishment of Constabulary credited to the county of Galway has been below the actual establishment of the county by 46 men in January 1882; 47 men in February; 47 men in March; 42 men in April; 42 men in May; 51 men in June; 55 men in July; 48 men in August; and 34 men in September; if £14,783 has been charged to that county for extra Constabulary in 1882; and, would he take steps to see that the two or three thousand pounds which have been charged to the county by a system of accounts in which credit has not been given for the full Constabulary establishment, would be re-credited to the treasurer of the county?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have fully explained this matter in answer to the hon. Member for the Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). The charge upon the county of Galway for extra police has been made strictly in accordance with the Acts of Parliament; and the necessary details in support of the charge have been forwarded to the local authorities for the information of the ratepayers.

LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—ALLEGED PERSONATION OF THE POLICE.
MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, in the month of June, information was conveyed to police of Augha West, in the county of Leitrim, that the son of a bailiff in that district, who was under police protection, had, on two successive days,

735
visited several of the townlands in the district, dressed in policeman's uniform, and made inquiries at various houses as to the payment of their dog tax; whether he arrested, or pretended to arrest, an old man named Quinn for being an offender against the Crimes Act; whether it is true that he visited on the occasion the house of a man named Keernan and made inquiries there as to their opinion of the bailiff, M'Goohan (his own father); and, what action have the police taken with regard thereto? He would also ask, whether it is a fact that this man has received £150 compensation under the Crimes Act; and, whether the people of the townland where he resides will have to pay that money?
MR. TREVELYANasked for Notice of the last two Questions. With regard to the preceding Questions, the alleged circumstances were said to have occurred on June 11; but no information was given to the police till the 31st July, and then the information was anonymous. The police had since made inquiries, with the result that a case would be brought before the magistrates at Petty Sessions.

THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—ACCESS TO THE ORNAMENTAL WATER IN THE REGENT'S PARK.
MR. D. GRANTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it has been decided to construct a bridge across the ornamental water at Clarence Gate, Regent's Park, so as to obtain direct access into the centre of the Park from that point; and, if so, whether he will allow an elevation of the bridge to be placed in the Library of the House, so that Members may form a judgment before the contract is signed?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, no provision has been made in this year's Estimates for the construction of a bridge as indicated by the hon. Member; and, consequently, the work cannot be undertaken during the present year. The subject, however, will be considered when the Estimates for next year are in preparation.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE EXTRA POLICE TAX—CASE OF HALLISSEY.
MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Plunkett, special resident
736
magistrate, has addressed the following letter, dated 30th July, to the Reverend Father Ahern, P.P., Killavullen:—
"Dear Sir,—I have received your letter. I hope that the necessary amount may he raised in order that Hallissey may he in a position to emigrate, as I understand he is anxious to do so. If this is done I shall recommend His Excellency to remove the proclamation and thus relieve the parish of the Police Tax. But, as long as the authorities consider that protection is necessary for him, the police will remain at the expense of the parish. Should you he able to get the necessary amount in a few days, I will use my influence to have as much as possible arrears, for which warrants will shortly issue, struck off, but this will not be able to he done after warrants issue;"
whether the letter refers to a proposal that the ratepayers should raise a sum of £50 to induce Hallissey, for whose protection the extra police are maintained, to leave the country; whether the following paragraph, in a letter addressed to Mr. George C. Foott, J.P., dated "Chief Secretary's Office, Dublin Castle, 7th August," and signed "Samuel Lee Anderson," refers to the same proposal:—
"I am to add that His Excellency understands that arrangements are now in progress by which the necessity for the protection of Hallissey will cease, and on learning that such arrangements have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion, His Excellency will direct the withdrawal of the additional police;"
whether Samuel Leo Anderson is an official of the Chief Secretary's office; and, if not, in what capacity does he sign the communication; under what statute a resident magistrate is empowered to make an offer of the nature referred to; and, whether this proceeding has the approval of the Government?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, as Captain Plunkett has been on leave for the past few days and moving about, I have been unable to communicate directly with him, or ascertain whether his letter is correctly quoted from in the Question; but, assuming it to be so, I think it must be quite clear to anyone reading the letter that it referred to a matter which was already before the Rev. Mr. Ahern, and did not contain any original proposal or offer. Captain Plunkett thinks that Hallissey is still in danger, and that the police are required for his protection; and I see nothing in the nature of a threat or intimidation in his letting the people know that he will use his influence to have the police removed in

737
the event of their carrying out the idea which has been started in the parish of securing the emigration of Hallissey. The hon. Member must bear in mind that I do not pledge myself that the original communication was made by Captain Plunkett. With regard to Mr. Anderson, he is temporarily employed in the Chief Secretary's Office assisting Mr. Jenkinson, for whom, and in whose absence, he signed the letter quoted from by his Excellency's desire. The procedure has the approval of the Government.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not told them under what Statute a Resident Magistrate was empowered to make an offer of the nature referred to in the Question.
MR. TREVELYAN: It is not a question of Statute. Here is a man who is receiving police protection under the idea that his life is in danger; and the Resident Magistrate, in communication with the parish priest who is interested in the matter, states that if the man is got out of the country it is probable the police will be removed.
MR. O'BRIEN: That is a threat to the people if the money is not raised. I want to know on what principle of law or justice the right hon. Gentleman allows young men in Loughrea to be threatened with arrest if they raise a subscription to defend a man whom the law presumes to be innocent——
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is entering into debatable matter.
MR. HEALY: Not at all.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entering into debatable matter, and he cannot do so in the form of a Question.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I rise to Order. I distinctly heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) say to his hon. Friend on the other side of him—"Go on, Sir."
MR. HEALY: No; I did not.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Yes; you did.
MR. HEALY: If I said anything of the kind, I will stick to it; but I beg to say that if that remark was used on these Benches, I did not hear it, and I did not make it.
MR. O'BRIEN: I beg to give Notice that I will take the first opportunity of asking why pains and penalties are
738
being inflicted on men in Ireland for doing a certain thing, while Resident Magistrates are at perfect liberty to do it?
MR. O'KELLY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not evident that a species of blackmail is being permitted by the Government in this matter? ["Order, order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: After the notice taken of the previous Question, the Question now put is highly irregular.
MR. O'KELLY: Then I beg to give Notice that I will raise the question on the Estimates.

UNION OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL—PENSIONS.
MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will give a Return showing the number of persons who, under the Union Officers' Superannuation Bill, will become entitled to pensions, and showing the amount which will become chargeable on the rates immediately; the rate of annual increase and the estimated maximum of the charge on the rates after a lapse of ten years?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have just received the following telegram:—
"There are more than 5,000 Union and medical officers employed in Ireland at present, and it would he impossible, without making inquiries respecting their ages, service, state of health, and the wishes of the senior officers on the subject of retirement to prepare even an approximate Return of those who will he entitled to receive pensions within the next 10 years. For the same reason it would be impossible to form an estimate which could be presented as a Return of the amount which will become chargeable on the rates to meet the payment for superannuation allowances."
The existing Act authorizing Union officers to be granted pensions has been in force since 1865, and the Act authorizing medical officers to be granted pensions since 1869, and during that time the charge for pensions has grown to £14,999, which is about ¼d. in the pound on the valuation of the rateable property in Ireland. It is not thought probable that the expense under the new Bill will much, if at all, exceed the present expenditure under the existing Acts.
MR. O'KELLY: In view of the fact that the Government cannot lay on the Table of the House correct information

739
on this matter, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of postponing the Superannuation Bill until they can give precise information?
[No answer was given.]

POST OFFICE—THE PARCEL POST— REGISTRATION.
MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked the Postmaster General, Whether the Government contemplates associating with the Parcels Post any system of registration or insurance of parcels?
MR. FAWCETT: In reply to my hon. Friend, I may state that the Government have had under their consideration the question of whether or not it would be desirable for the Post Office to undertake the registration or insurance of parcels; but it has been thought better to postpone coming to a decision on the subject until we have had more experience of the working of the Parcel Post.
MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Postmaster General, Whether he can now see his way towards carrying out the reform in the inland postage of samples, in accordance with the practice prevailing in other countries which are comprised in the Postal Union? The hon. Gentleman also inquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the fact, as alleged in the newspapers, that under the present system, if a person bought 1,000 Belgian postage stamps, and then sent his parcels over to Belgium to be sent from there to this country, he gained 40 s. per 1,000 by the operation?
MR. FAWCETT: Sir, I am fully sensible of the anomaly to which I believe my hon. Friend refers, that a sample can be sent from a foreign country, such as France or Belgium, to England at a lower postage than that at which a packet of the same weight can be sent from one part of England to another. The question of a sample post cannot, however, be considered apart from an international parcel post. The arrangements for this are now being carefully considered, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the question to which he refers shall not be lost sight of.

PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)—THE REGENT'S CANAL.
MR. D. GRANTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whe-
740
ther his attention has been directed to the fact that the Zoological Gardens drain into the Regent's Canal, that the present state of the Canal is a danger to the public health; and, whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy the evil?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Question stated as a fact that the present condition of the Regent's Canal was dangerous to the public health. If the Canal was in such a condition, he was not aware of any reason why the local authority should not proceed against the Company under the ordinary Act for the removal of nuisances.

NAVY—PROMOTION—WARRANT OFFICERS.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there is any reason why the per-centage of promotion to the rank of chief gunners should not be the same as that of other warrant officers, viz. four per cent. in lieu of two per cent.; and, whether the Admiralty will consider the expediency of increasing the number of chief gunners, chief boatswains, and chief carpenters, considering that the rank of "chief" is virtually the highest which seamen and petty officers of the Navy can attain?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I cannot find that the figures quoted by the hon. Member as representing the proportion of the higher to the lower rank of warrant officers are at all accurate. But without going into that question, I may say that the Admiralty have had for some time under their consideration the expediency of some re-adjustment of the numbers in the higher rank in certain classes, without any increase of chief warrant officers as a whole. No decision has yet been arrived at.

INDIA—CRIMINAL CODE (PROCEDURE) AMENDMENT (MR. ILBERT'S) BILL— REPORTS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF (for Mr. E. STANHOPE)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, When he proposes to make his promised statement giving, in a summary form, the views of the Local Governments in India upon the Criminal Jurisdiction Bill?
MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, I am unable to make any statement on the subject

741
to-day; but I hope to be able to do so on Monday, if the hon. Member will repeat the Question then.

INDIAN MILITARY EXPENDITURE— THE SIMLA ARMY COMMISSION.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF (for Mr. E. STANHOPE)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that all the remaining proposals of the Government of India and of the Simla Army Commission on the subject of the reduction of Military expenditure in India have been rejected by the Secretary of State; and, if he will now lay upon the Table Papers giving a complete explanation of these proposals?
MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, I do not quite understand what the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire means by "all the remaining proposals;" but the recommendations of the Government of India for the re-organization of the Indian Army in four Army Corps, which has not been adopted, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, would involve additional, rather than decreased cost. The ulimate saving from the remaining proposals was estimated by the Government of India to amount to 43 lakhs of rupees. Of these, the Secretary of State has already sanctioned reductions amounting to 21¾ lakhs. Reductions amounting to nine lakhs were disallowed by the Secretary of State, as they would have required very important changes in the organization of the British Army. With regard to the remaining charges in the staff and other establishments, the Government of India have been invited to make any further recommendations they may consider practicable, consistent with the continuance of the Presidential Armies, it being considered that the desired reductions may be effected under the pre-sent organization. The Correspondence is not complete; but Papers will be presented when it is concluded.

ARMY—WORMWOOD SCRUBBS RANGES.
MR. GUY DAWNAY (for Mr. TATTON EGERTON)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Globe" of 14th August, stating it was the intention of the Military authorities to close the ranges at Wormwood Scrubbs; and, whether there is any truth in the statement?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, firing at the butts at Wormwood Scrubbs, as now arranged, has been found to involve danger to inhabitants of the district. Therefore, pending a full inquiry, the firing of the Household Cavalry has been discontinued, and that of the Volunteers strictly limited to first-class shots.

ARMY—VACCINATION.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, Under what authority, prerogative or statutory, the following Regulations were framed and issued:—
"Regulations for the Medical Department.
"623. Every recruit, without exception, will he vaccinated on joining the head quarters or depot of the corps to which he belongs, unless the operation is certified to have been already successfully performed subsequently to his enlistment.
"624. The Medical History Sheet of every soldier will furnish information whether he has been re-vaccinated, and Medical Officers will re-vaccinate those cases where no such record exists;"
and, if under statutory authority, under what statute; if of prerogative as conferred by the Crown on his appointment to office, under what words in his patent of appointment, or in any other instrument, he exercises the power?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the Secretary of State for War is responsible to the Crown and to Parliament for the efficiency of the Army, and has always been held to have authority to issue such Regulations as are necessary for securing that object, including, of course, its maintenance in health. The 14th paragraph of the 14th section of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Army, issued under the sanction of Her Majesty, lays down that—
"Medical officers doing duty with troops will in all medical and sanitary duties be guided by the Army Medical Regulations,"
which contain the paragraphs quoted, and thus I conceive gives to the Medical Regulations the same authority as the Queen's Regulations themselves.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether he was to understand from the noble Lord that he claimed for himself to exercise the power, which the Crown did not possess, to submit individuals to a surgical operation against their will?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I know there is no statutable authority for vaccination.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: As I believe the Secretary of State for War has acted ultra vires, I beg to give Notice that I shall oppose on the Estimates any charge in connection with vaccination in the Army.

MADAGASCAR—ACTION OF THE FRENCH AT TAMATAVE.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the report in Wednesday's "Standard" is correct that an English merchant and his three servants have been arrested by the French at Tamatave, and are now imprisoned on board a French Man-of-War; how many British subjects are now imprisoned at Madagascar; and, what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government for their immediate release?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, no information has reached Her Majesty's Government respecting the arrest mentioned in the Standard; but inquiry is being made. So far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, Mr. Shaw is the only British subject now detained by the French naval authorities. The late Consul Pakenham's Secretary, who was arrested, has been released. The arrest of Mr. Shaw is the subject of Correspondence with the French Government; but I cannot, at present, make any further statement.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is the offence stated for which Mr. Shaw is confined?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: A Question was asked on that subject the other day, and the answer was in the negative.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he will lay the Despatches received from Madagascar, on Tuesday the 7th August, without delay upon the Table of the House; and, whether he will inform the House what British ships of war are now at Madagascar and the Mauritius?
MR CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, the despatches in question refer to matters which are rather for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government than of the Admiralty; and I believe the hon. Member has already been informed, on the part of the Government,
744
that these despatches cannot be made public. With regard to the second Question, I can only say, as on previous occasions, that it is not for the public interest that the information asked for should be given.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwanted to know how long this humiliating silence was to be maintained? [Cries of "Order!"] He would like to ask why it was not for the public service that the names of the ships at Madagascar should be given? ["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now asking for an opinion, which is not regular.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether he should be in Order if he asked whether the hon. Gentleman could give his reasons why the information could not be given?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty has already stated on his responsibility that the information could not be given.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked whether the hon. Gentleman meant that the Despatches could not be produced at all, or could not be produced at the present time?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that, what he meant to state was that at present no assurance could be given as to the time or extent of their production.

POST OFFICE—THE PARCEL POST— RURAL LETTER CARRIERS.
MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Postmaster General, Whether he could see his way to relaxing the new Regulations, under which rural letter carriers are prohibited from carrying small parcels (not sent by post), the easy transmission of which has been a great convenience to the poorer classes; and, whether his attention has been called to the heavy loads of Post parcels which have to be carried by foot messengers from Railway Stations to Post Offices, in consequence of the promised hand trucks not having been received?
MR. FAWCETT: I think, Sir, it will be admitted that it would not be expedient to allow rural letter carriers to carry small parcels, which would directly compete with those they are employed to carry for the Post Office. I am aware that there are many complaints that the poor in rural districts

745
may be subjected to inconvenience if the letter carriers are not allowed to carry for them, as they were allowed to do before the introduction of the Parcel Post, small packets of medicine. The question is now being carefully considered, and I shall be very glad if I can see my way to make an exception in the case of small packets of medicine. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I can assure him that if he will inform me of any case in which foot messengers have been overburdened in consequence of the absence of hand trucks the matter shall be immediately attended to.

POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—SIXPENNY TELEGRAMS.
MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Postmaster General, When he expects the sixpenny telegram system will be started?
MR. FAWCETT: Sir, I can assure my hon. Friend that we are very anxious to bring the reduced charge for telegrams into operation as soon as practicable. If, however, adequate preparations were not made to meet the increase of business which it is anticipated will result from the minimum charge being reduced to 6d. the wires would got blocked; and, consequently, there would be great delay and serious inconvenience to the public. I may mention, as showing the preparations required, that it is estimated that about 15,000 miles of new wire will be needed. In the Treasury Minute recently laid on the Table, the 1st of October next year was fixed as the date for the introduction of the reduced tariff. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Next year!] There are 15,000 miles of telegraph wire to lay.

ARMY (INDIA)—THE AFGHAN FRONTIER POSTS.
MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether all the British troops have been withdrawn from the Pisheen Valley, and what is the distance of the farthest British outpost from Candahar?
MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the station of Tull-Chotiali, in South-Eastern Afghanistan, has not been found very unhealthy; whether sickness and other privations endured by the Native Regiments stationed there, as
746
also in the outposts in the Pisheen Valley, has caused much dissatisfaction amongst the Native troops; can any prospect be held out of these Afghan stations being abandoned; and, can the Medical Returns from all the transpontine stations, including Quetta, up to some very recent date, be laid upon the Table?
MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, there are no English troops in the Pisheen Valley; but there are two detachments of Native troops at the outposts of Gulistan and Khush-dil-Khan-ka-Killa. The former post is about 105 miles from Candahar; the latter about 110. In answer to the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), I have to say that no Report has been received of any special sickness at Tull-Chotiali. The latest Returns, of the 1st of June last, show that of the garrison of 520 men present, 22 were sick. There is no reason to suppose there is any dissatisfaction among the small detachments in the Pisheen Valley, or any cause for dissatisfaction. There is no intention of withdrawing those troops from these outposts. The latest complete Sanitary Returns of the Army in India are for 1881. The latest monthly Return for June, 1883, shows that of the 3,429 European troops in the trans-Indus stations, there were 221 sick, and of the 15,329 Native troops, there were 491 sick on the 1st of that month.

DOMINION OF CANADA—SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will lay upon the Table an Act, recently passed in the Canadian Parliament, respecting the sale of intoxicating liquors and the issue of licences there for?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that as soon as the Act was received from Canada it would be given to the House.

CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS.
MR. BARRYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether a Memorial, signed by 100 Collectors of Customs, sent into the Treasury so long ago as November 1880, is still unanswered; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay?
MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the Memorial was acknowledged at the time; but since then there have been such alterations in the organization of the Service as to make it inapplicable to the present situation. The case of each collectorate has been, and is being considered separately.

THE MAHARAJAH DHULEEP SINGH— PROPOSED VISIT TO INDIA.
MR. ONSLOW, who had the following Question on the Paper:—
"To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it has been definitely decided that the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh is to visit India this autumn, and for what object; and, if so, whether he is to be allowed to visit the Punjab, Scinde, or any portion of the north-west provinces; and, whether there is any truth in the report that treasonable letters have been seized in the Punjab, or elsewere, regarding the contemplated visit of the Maharajah?"
said: I have to thank the Prime Minister for his courtesy in sending me a letter with reference to this Question. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me a short time to consider whether I should not put this Question in some shape, and whether it might not be for the best interests of India that it should be answered.

EGYPT—THE CHOLERA.
MR. D. GRANTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether an arrangement can be made to utilise our present medical organisation in Egypt to obtain the fullest knowledge of the disease itself, its originating centres, modes of distribution, and general controlling causes, attention being specially directed to detecting the minute organisms in which cholera, equally with other zymotic diseases, are believed to originate, that the information thus obtained be condensed into one Report, printed, if need be, illustrated, and distributed to the Members of the House?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Dr. Hunter has instructions to report on the whole subject of the cholera outbreak, and his Reports will be presented to Parliament.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether,
748
considering the great labour bestowed by the Grand Committee on Law upon the Criminal Appeal Bill, he will give Saturday next for the Consideration of the Report?
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman seriously thought that the Bill referred to could be properly discussed at that period of the Session in the absence of the Lord Chief Justice and other Law Officers?
MR. GLADSTONE: The Question of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) really amounts to an inquiry whether the Government intend to submit the Criminal Appeal Bill to the judgment of the House. We consider it our duty to do so. In answer to the hon. Baronet, I have to state that I cannot absolutely foresee the time when we shall be able to bring it on. With reference to the remaining Business, what we propose to do is this. There remains very little to be done with the Scotch Local Government Bill; and I presume we may, therefore, finish it tonight after Supply. To-morrow, at 2 o'clock, we propose to take Committee on the Tramways (Ireland) Bill, and afterwards the Report of the Scotch Local Government Bill and the Report of the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Bill. If Supply is not finished tonight we propose to proceed with it tomorrow at the Evening Sitting; and I hope we may anticipate, from the kindness shown by hon. Members last week, that those who have Motions anterior to Supply will allow us to go at once into Committee. On Saturday we will take Supply, and afterwards the final stages of other Bills not likely to lead to debate; and I hope afterwards to ask the judgment of the House on the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill. On Monday, if we have the opportunity, my hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bring in the Indian Budget, and on Tuesday it is proposed to consider the Lords' Amendments on the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill, as I presume it will be returned from the other House by that time, and we shall likewise take the Medical Act Amendment Bill.
MR. GIBSONsaid, he hoped it was not intended to sit on Saturday to a late hour.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was not. He assumed that the Business to be

749
proceeded with on Saturday at the beginning would not take much time.
MR. DILLWYNasked whether, considering the strong opposition to the Crown Lands Bill, it would be proceeded with?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was not cognizant of any great opposition to this Bill.
MR. EDWARD CLARKEbegged to repeat his Question, whether it was intended to proceed with the Contempts of Court Bill.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was under the impression that there was a disposition on the part of the House to accept that Bill. If so, it would certainly be proceeded with.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, if it was intended to proceed with Government Business at 9 o'clock to-morrow, he should be wanting in frankness if he did not state that it was his intention, unless he saw good reason to the contrary, to bring forward the case of the Barrow drainage on that occasion.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he would remind the Prime Minister that both he and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War had promised that the Army Estimates would be brought on at a reasonable hour. It would be impossible to discuss those Estimates adequately at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. He trusted, therefore, that as there were some Votes on which he wished to make a few remarks, the right hon. Gentleman would remember the pledge that had been given on behalf of the Government.
COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, the Medical Vote of the Army had been postponed on more than one occasion on the distinct ground that it contained contentious matter, and in order that it might be discussed fully.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the only undertaking he could give at this stage of the Session was that such Votes as had been mentioned would not be taken at the extremely late hour alluded to by the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot).
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that Vote 12 in the Navy Estimates involved the consideration of a very contentious subject, and he hoped it would be brought on at an hour when it could be fully debated.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could only repeat what he had said respecting the
750
Army Votes. He could not give any information at present as to the time at which the Navy Estimates would be taken.
MR. O'KELLYasked, whether any Business would be taken on Saturday after the Criminal Appeal Bill?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that would be the last of the subjects brought forward by the Government.
MR. CALLANasked, whether it was proposed to proceed any further with the Stolen Goods Bill and the Medical Act Amendment Bill?
MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.
MR. CALLAN: When?
[No answer was given.]
SIR LYON PLAYFAIRasked, whether it would be possible to take the Medical Act Amendment Bill at an early date, as there were numerous deputations awaiting it in London from all parts of the Kingdom?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he had made the best arrangement according to the time at his disposal, and could not possibly name an earlier day for its consideration.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman, as usual, after the disposal of the Government Business on Saturday, will move the adjournment.
MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir.
MR. WARTONinquired, whether it was proposed to proceed any further with the Summary Jurisdiction Bill this Session? It involved the consideration of 155 different subjects.
MR. HIBBERTreplied, that despite its length the Bill was very formal in character, had been considered for the last two or three years; there was no opposition to it, and he saw no reason why it should not be proceeded with.

REVENUE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL—CLAUSE 17.
MR. BROADHURSTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, seeing the lateness of the Session, and the shortness of the notice of reduced interest on Friendly Society deposits proposed in Clause 17 of the Revenue and Friendly Societies Bill, he will advise the withdrawal of that Clause from the Bill?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that, under Parliamentary compulsion,

751
he very much regretted that the Government must desist from pressing that clause of the Bill.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— COUNTY CORK.
COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that a man named Connor, a caretaker on the estate of Mr. Roland Wynne, at Glenheigh, county Kerry, was shot on Monday night; whether the authorities have received information that his life is in danger; and, whether he has been refused police protection?
MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was true that on the 13th instant Michael Connor, an agent, was shot in the head and arms when in his own dwelling at 10 P.M. Fortunately, he was not dangerously wounded. Captain Plunkett, Resident Magistrate at Cork, had been telegraphed to for the particulars; but as he was away on leave the answer could not be immediately expected. It would, doubtless, arrive in a day or two.

LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— SCOTCH AND IRISH NATIONAL GALLERIES—REPORTS OF THE DIRECTORS.
In reply to Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK,
MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would inquire why no Reports had been laid on the Table from the Directors of the Scotch and Irish National Galleries.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS COMMISSION—THE REPORT.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the reason of the delay in publishing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Report?
MR. HIBBERTsaid, that the Report would be issued as soon as possible. Delay had been caused by the length of the Report, and in consequence of the presentation of an additional Report by Lord Penzance.

SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND.
MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he had any further information respecting Zululand?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No, Sir; I have not.

TRADE AND COMMERCE—VEXATIOUS PROCEEDINGS OF THE FRENCH AT SMYRNA.
MR. M'COAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been drawn to the last Report of Her Majesty's Consul at Smyrna, in which it is stated that the French Company administering the Quay are throwing vexatious obstacles in the way of British commerce?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, it has been under the consideration of the Foreign Office.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £261,103, 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 1884, for the Expenses of the Directors of Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies, and of the Convict Establishments under their control."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Financial Secretary if it was proposed to go on with the Civil Service Estimates in strict order until they reached the end of Class VII.?
    MR. COURTNEYreplied in the affirmative.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to call attention to the extraordinary high salaries which the English prison officials received as compared with the salaries of their brethren in Ireland. He had made a comparison which he wished to lay before the Committee.
    SIR JOHN HAYrose to Order. He thought it was understood that the Vote for Dover Harbour would be taken first.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the sum required for Dover Harbour was included in the present Vote.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that the Governors of male prisons in England had an income of £650 a-year, whereas those in Ireland had only £300 a-year, or more than 50 per cent less. Then in England, after

    753
    five years the salary was raised to £700 a-year; whereas in Ireland it could only he increased by £50 after five years' service, the maximum salary in Ireland being £350. Then, again, another class of Governors in England received £500 a-year, rising to £650; whilst in Ireland the same class only received £200 a-year, rising to £250. There was a third class in England receiving £400 a-year, with an increment until it amounted to £500; whereas in Ireland the same class received only £150 a-year, with no increment at all. A further class in England received £300 a-year, rising to £400; but there was no similar class in Ireland. In Scotland the salaries paid were less than in England, but higher than those paid in Ireland. He did not mean to say that the salaries paid in England and Scotland were too high; but what he contended was that in the Irish prisons the salaries paid were much too small for the labours entailed upon the officers. He knew he should be met by the argument that in Ireland there were fewer convicts than in England. Of course, that was a happy state of things; but the Governors had to give the same consistent attention in the Irish prisons as the Governors in the English prisons, and there was the same mental and physical strain to contend with. If it was the fact that there were fewer convicts in the Irish prisons than in the English prisons, it was not the case that the warders in the Irish prisons had less convicts under their charge than in England. But how were the warders dealt with? He found that a chief warder of an English prison began with £125 a-year, and that his salary rose until it reached £150; whereas the salary of a chief warder in an Irish prison began and ended at £100 a-year. Another class of chief warders in England commenced at £100 a-year, and rose to £125; whereas in Ireland the same class received £85 a-year, without any increment whatever. Assistant warders in England began at £60 a-year, and gradually rose to £65; whereas the unfortunate assistant warders in Ireland began at £45 a-year, and rose to £55 only after a service of some years.
    MR. COURTNEYasked what Estimates the hon. Member was quoting from?
    MR. HEALYreplied, that he was quoting from a compilation which he
    754
    had himself made with some care, and the accuracy of which he could vouch for. He had heard constant complaints, and, owing to the kindness of Her Majesty's Government, he had recently had ample facilities for ascertaining what the salaries of the Irish officials really were. He could assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) that the salaries of the Irish assistant warders began at £45 a-year, and rose to £55. He had no doubt the Committee would feel somewhat astonished to find that a warder could support himself and a wife and family respectably on £45 a-year, or about 18 s. a week; and he had no doubt they would remember that extraordinary burdens were thrown upon the Irish warders. In many instances the prisoners entrusted to their charge were men whom the Government would not like to slip easily through their fingers. On that account the warders in Ireland were men who had a good deal more responsibility thrown upon them than the same class of men in England. During recent times these unfortunate warders in Ireland had more than 1,000 political convicts under their care; and as the loyalty of a man meant pretty much what he got out of it, he could not see how the Government could expect men to be very loyal on £45 a-year. It was an invidious thing to say, but it was a fact, that an English assistant warder could begin at £60 a-year, and rise to £65; whereas in Ireland, an assistant warder, who had much more responsible duties to perform, could only begin at £45 a-year, and rise to £55, the number of prisoners under his control being invariably the same. He would not trouble the Committee by going through the various other offices; but the inequality in regard to salaries ran through the whole of them; and if the Secretary to the Treasury desired it, he would supply him with the Return he held in his hand in the course of the evening, and which related to chaplains, medical officers, storekeepers, warders, clerks, female warders, lady superintendents, matrons, and, in short, all the officials in Ireland. The whole of them received less pay than the same officers in England. Then, again, owing to the extraordinary burdens cast upon these officials recently there was much greater necessity for confidence being reposed in them than in the case of England; and

    755
    he intended to raise the question of the non-fulfilment of certain promises made to them during the existence of the Coercion Act. All he wanted to know now was, how it was that Irish officials were so much less paid than English officials? He did not at all contend that English Governors or warders were over-paid; but he thought that Irish officials should be placed upon an equality with them.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, regard must be had to the ordinary rates of pay in the neighbourhoods where the people were employed, and to the cost of living. He thought it would be found that the same difference in regard to salaries went through the entire Service, not merely in regard to Ireland, but to Scotland also. He would take, for example, the highest officials of all. The pay and salary of a Judge in the High Court of Ireland was only £3,500 a-year; whereas in the High Court of England it was £5,000. The Judges of the Court of Session in Scotland only received £3,000. In each case, however, they had the same high standing, the same qualifications, and the same duties to perform. It was the same in regard to the pay of the servants of the Post Office. The pay of the Post Office employés in England varied very much from the pay of the same officers both in Scotland and Ireland. The hon. Gentleman complained that certain employés in the present Establishments of Ireland did not receive the same rate of pay as similar employés in England. He (Mr. Courtney) had taken a rapid glance at some of the Votes; and, at page 230, he found that the rates of pay in one of the Convict Establishments for assistant warders began at £70 a-year, and reached as high a figure as the employés in the English Convict Establishments; but those rates of pay included ration allowances. If the hon. Member would look at the Estimate for officers in the Mountjoy Prison, he would find that the second-class warders began at £45 a-year, and received an increment up to £54; the first class began at £55 a-year and went up to £70; a principal warder began at £70 a-year and went up to £80; and a chief warder began at £100 a-year and went up to £120. The hon. Member said they had no increment at all; but if he would look at the bottom of the page he would see that they had
    756
    an allowance of £15 a-year in lieu of rations. If those allowances were added, it would be found that the rates of pay in Mountjoy Prison were very nearly equal to the rates of pay of the warders in the Convict Establishments in England.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, the hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware that there was no very considerable difference between the cost of living in London and in Dublin. On the contrary, it was quite as expensive for a man in the position of a warder to live in Dublin as it was in London; and if anything, the advantage was on the side of the man who lived in London. He thought the question raised by his hon. Friend was a very fair one, and it had not at all been satisfactorily answered by the Secretary to the Treasury.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) had referred only to Mountjoy Prison. He (Mr. Harrington) did not think that the allowance for warders in that prison was the allowance generally received by warders throughout Ireland. In other cases not only was there no allowance made to the warders for rations, but out of the very small and miserable salaries they received they were called upon to pay for extra service, and, among other things, for washing. A prison warder was called upon to pay for every collar and every shirt he were during the time he was in prison, the Prison Boards requiring the warders to pay for everything that was washed for them. The statement which his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) had made with regard to the prison salaries was quite accurate. Like his hon. Friend, he had been afforded a good opportunity by Her Majesty's Government of considering the question, having been imprisoned in Ireland no less than four times. His hon. Friend had quoted accurately the salaries given to the warders; but he had omitted to say that those salaries were still further reduced by the fines imposed upon them by the Governors of the prisons. It was in the power of the Governor of a gaol to fine his warders without consulting the Prison Board; and he knew various instances in which it had been done. Some of these unfortunate men got 18 s. per week for their services. They had to enter upon their labours at half-past 5 o'clock in the morning, and they were

    757
    inside the prison during the whole of the day; and, disagreeable as it was to be there as a prisoner, he was of opinion that the lot of a prisoner was a much more fortunate one than that of the wretched warder, who was engaged the whole day long contemplating the misery and sufferings of his fellow-beings. And the warder, when on duty, had to take his turn every week at the night watch. He had all the affairs of the prison to keep going, and he was required to peg the clock every quarter of an hour in order to show that he had been discharging his duty. If he missed doing so the clock told the tale, and the warder was fined.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman, in comparing the pay of warders in the English Convict Establishments with those in Ireland, would he in Order; but it is not in Order to enter into every detail connected with the Irish Convict Establishments now.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he did not propose to enter into details of that kind; but only desired to compare the salaries received by the Irish prison officials with those received by their brethren in England. He wanted to show that instead of any allowances being made generally for rations it was quite the other way, and that the salaries of the Irish prison officials were even less than the amount mentioned by his hon. Friend. As, however, the question would be raised when the Irish Estimates came on, he would not trouble the Committee with any further observations.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury had given the Irish Members some startling information, to the effect that living in London was dearer than in Dublin. If that were so, how was it that the Secretary to the Treasury had sanctioned an increased grant to Mr. Hamilton, the Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, under cover of the increased cost of living in Dublin? That was an important point. The Treasury had given Mr. Hamilton £500 a-year extra on account of the increased cost of living in Dublin; but they wanted to cut down the salaries of these unfortunate warders from £65 a-year in England to £45 in Ireland, because it was so much cheaper to live in Ireland than it was in England. Now, he thought that was extremely unfair. If
    758
    the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were true in regard to Mountjoy Prison, what had he to say about the Governors who only received £300 a-year, with a maximum of £400; whereas in England the minimum was £350 a-year, and the maximum £650? That was a clear inequality of £250; and if the hon. Gentleman wished to establish his position that living in Dublin was cheaper than in London, why should he give Mr. Hamilton an extra £500 a-year?
    MR. HIBBERTremarked, that there were three classes of Governors in England, and that the whole of them did not receive £300 a-year.
    MR. HEALYsaid, there were also three classes of Governors in Ireland, and the salary of £400 was the maximum.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Gentleman was comparing the Governors and warders of ordinary prisons in Ireland with the Governors and warders of convict prisons in England.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that Mountjoy Prison was a Convict Establishment.
    MR. COURTNEYobserved, that when they came to the convict prisons, on page 234, it would be found that the pay was much higher.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the items on the page referred to by the hon. Gentleman only made the case still worse. The Governors were there classified, and the highest male officer received £650 a-year.
    MR. COURTNEYpointed out that there were four classes.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the first class received £650 a-year; the next, £500 a-year; the third, £400 a-year; and the last class, £300 a-year, rising to £400; so that the lowest class in England received as much as the highest class in Ireland, notwithstanding the extra duties imposed on the Governors of Irish prisons as compared with the Governors of English prisons. He was glad to see the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) in his place, because the right hon. Gentleman was upon the Prisons' Committee now engaged in inquiring into these subjects. He thought that Committee could not have a better Chairman than the right hon. Gentleman; and he hoped when the question of pay came before the Committee that it would be carefully considered.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, the Royal Commission on the Penal Servitude Acts had recommended the inspection of convict prisons by independent gentlemen, magistrates, and others, to he appointed by the Home Secretary. That system had been commenced, and, as far as he knew, it had been found to work very well. He should like to know if it was still continued? He presumed that the Reports were of a confidential character, and that they could not be made public. He should like to know whether the prisons were regularly visited by independent Inspectors; and whether the Home Office was satisfied with the results of the system?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the plan was in operation still, and it had been attended by the most satisfactory results. The Home Secretary had received several Reports from the Visitors, which were of a very satisfactory character. The Government, from what they had heard, were of opinion that it was desirable to continue the system.
    MR. O'KELLYasked if the hon. Gentleman was in a position to say that all the prisons had been visited; and, if so, how often?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was unable to say whether every prison had been visited, or how often.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had placed an Amendment on the Paper for the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £16,150, which was the amount included in the Vote for the purpose of erecting a prison and providing workshops in connection with the formation of a proposed harbour of refuge at Dover. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that a Committee had been appointed in 1875 to inquire into this subject. He was a Member of that Committee, and he thought that there had been a distinct violation of the promise which had been made to the House by the late Government after the Report of the Committee was presented. In 1873 a similar Vote to the present, but only £10,000 in amount, was brought forward by the Liberal Government in connection with Dover Harbour. It was on the 30th of July that the Vote on Report was brought before the House; and upon that occasion his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) rose in his place and objected to any Vote for
    760
    these important works being taken at so late a period of the Session. They had now reached the 16th of August, and again they were asked by a Liberal Government, advocates of economy, to vote a sum of more than £16,000 for the like works; and if the Committee passed that Vote they would virtually pledge themselves to go on with works which would ultimately entail an expenditure of more than £1,000,000, as stated, and, in his opinion, of a sum several times larger than £1,000,000. When the hon. Member for Burnley proposed his Resolution in 1873, 61 Members voted in support of the Government, and 60 against. It happened to be his (Sir George Balfour's) first Session in the House, and he was induced by the friends of the Government to support the Vote, under the promise that a full inquiry would subsequently be made. An hon. Friend, who was then Member for Aberdeen, was also induced to support the Government under similar circumstances; and by that means the Government obtained a majority of 1, instead of being left in a minority of 2. The Government on that occasion distinctly promised that they would not proceed with the expenditure involved in the construction of these works until there had been a full inquiry. But that inquiry never was instituted by this Government. Happily for the country, as far as the expenditure of this money was concerned, the Government went out in the January following, and a Conservative Government came in. The Conservative Government were more wise than the Liberal Government, and they took a different course. [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary said "Hear, hear!" but he (Sir George Balfour) was only stating that which he believed to be perfectly correct. A Select Committee was appointed in 1875 for the purpose of investigating the progress of the works at Dover Harbour, and since then the question had conparatively slumbered, so far as related to discussion in that House. In the House of Lords, the present Foreign Minister brought on a discussion in favour of a harbour at Dover, but was answered in a most convincing manner by Lord Beaconsfield, who prominently urged the bare outlay which would have to be incurred in forming an efficient

    761
    refuge in Dover Bay. He regretted very much that the subject had been postponed until so late in the Session, because many hon. Members were now absent from the House who had intended to oppose the present Vote. For instance, the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) had assured him that he was not only prepared to vote against it, but to speak against it. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley would have taken a similar course; but they and other hon. Members had been worn out by the long Sittings of the House, and had been obliged to leave London, so that it now devolved upon him (Sir George Balfour) alone to make this proposal of rejecting the proposed grant, and virtually thereby of stopping the proposed harbour. He might mention, also, that a promise had been given by the Government to lay all the Papers on the Table of the House in ample time to allow hon. Members to study the subject; but he regretted to say that it was only yesterday the latest Papers were issued, and it was only that morning that he had been able to see them. He had, therefore, been deprived of the opportunity of asking Questions in connection with the subject. It now appeared that the cost of the works at Dover Harbour were to amount to upwards of £1,000,000, and that the charges were increasing so rapidly as to lead to the certainty that, like all estimates of engineers, the amount would gradually swell up to several times the amount of the first estimate, already, by this last Paper, more than 50 per cent in excess of the first amount. He thought that this last estimate alone ought to be sufficient to alarm the country, as it was contrary to all the expectations at first held out. No doubt they would be reminded that great progress was being made with French harbours, and that they ought to make equal progress with the harbour at Dover as the French were with that at Boulogne. He believed the works at Boulogne had already been estimated to cost nearly £1,000,000 more than the first estimate, being now estimated to cost altogether 32,000,000 francs, as against 17,000,000 francs, which was the first Estimate. Indeed, it was said that even that sum would not be sufficient for the complete construction of that harbour. Were Her Majesty's Go-
    762
    vernment, then, to emulate the expenditure of France at Boulogne in connection with Dover Harbour? If so, then the conditions laid down as to the object to be attained at Dover in respect to its fitness to receive the largest vessels of the Navy entailed the necessity of having such extensive works as to far outdo Boulogne, and necessarily to entail an expenditure several times greater. There had been many plans submitted to the House in connection with Dover Harbour; and though the plan of 1873 contemplated works smaller than those now submitted, yet the then estimate was more than the proposed amount. Nevertheless, the then area and depth of water would have been insufficient for ships of the largest class, as it was only intended to cover an area of 300 acres. He submitted that only two or three ships of war of that large size could possibly visit that harbour with such a small area; and he knew that some of the former plans applied to a much larger area than that which was now contemplated. He held in his hand the nine plans of the harbour of refuge formerly proposed by eminent engineers, as shown in the Return 476, of July 10, 1848; and if hon. Members would refer to that important document they would find that several of the plans provided for a harbour to cover 900 acres, and the works were to cost £4,000,000. All the nine engineers qualified to speak in regard to works of this character proposed a harbour of a very much larger area than that comprised in the present plan. All the former plans included breakwaters, for the safety of the harbour, of a far more extensive profile than the one now planned. The extent of the break waters were given, and also the average cost per yard of constructing them, and that outlay exceeded by £4,000,000 the cost now proposed. Under the details so clearly stated in the plan the Committee were able to calculate for themselves what the present cost would be if works of a like character were now carried out. Since then vessels had increased in size and in draught of water. Consequently, the area and depth of water ought to be greater than formerly. Further, the Government of the former period devoted great attention to the character of the works, and to the outlay; but the Government, in this instance, had alto-

    763
    gether abstained from giving that opinion; and if it had been intentionally planned, the Committee could not have been left more destitute of information than it was. The name of the Duke of Wellington had been more than once introduced in all discussions about a refuge harbour at Dover, in order to influence the Committee; but there was no proof whatever that the Duke of Wellington ever did attach importance to the formation of this harbour at Dover. On the contrary, there was the evidence of the Duke himself that he preferred various other places to Dover. He considered Dungeness far more suitable for the purpose of forming a harbour, and also the Downs; and, so far from giving any preference to Dover, the Duke of Wellington always opposed the scheme in connection with the harbour there, believing, from a strategical point of view, Dover was not the most suitable place. He would conclude by moving the Amendment he had placed on the Paper for the reduction of the Vote; and he should certainly take a Division upon it, if it were only for the purpose of showing that a few Members still remained in the House who were determined to oppose the commencement of an expenditure which must ultimately involve the outlay of millions of money.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £244,953, 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 1884, for the Expenses of the Directors of Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies, and of the Convict Establishments under their control."—(General Sir George Balfour.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was not surprised that his hon. and gallant Friend should have called attention to the subject. No doubt it was a very important subject, and one which had constantly engaged the attention of the House. No doubt there had been various opinions adverse to the proposal; but the engineering objections which had been taken some years ago had not been supported. All the eminent engineers who had experience of the harbour works at Dover were of opinion that there was no practical difficulty in making a harbour there; and the evidence given on the other side was compa-
    764
    ratively trifling. He wished to point out why it was that the proposal was now before the Committee. The truth was that it was absolutely necessary, from all points of view, that employment should be found for convicts. Everybody knew that discipline depended upon affording occupation. If they locked up the convicts without occupation, or only gave them shot drill, and things of that kind, it would be extremely injurious to prison discipline; while the employment of convicts upon public works would be found highly beneficial; and the effects of recent changes in this particular seemed to be evidenced by the diminution of the number of convicts in proportion to the population, and, notwithstanding the increase of the population, everybody would regard that as a satisfactory result. The works at Portsmouth, Chatham, and elsewhere, on which the convicts had been employed, were now coming to an end; and the Government found themselves in this position—that within three years of the present time they would have 1,000 convicts on their hands, for whom they would have no works in the course of construction upon which to afford occupation for them. It was, therefore, essential to do something; and it was his duty to ask the Committee to consider what the works were upon which they could be most usefully employed. The character of work upon which convict labour could be usefully engaged was very limited. It was impossible to find work of a small character here and there. It was absolutely essential to have a large convict establishment under adequate control and supervision; and to justify the expenditure that would be necessary for making a large establishment, it must be a large work that would take a long time to complete, and it must also be a work calling for skilled labour. That was why the works at Chatham and Portsmouth, and works of that character, had been undertaken. But as those works were approaching completion, the problem was one confined in narrow limits. Hon Members might not be aware of the fact; but he had no hesitation in saying that the attempt to work a model farm at Dartmoor had not been successful. Consequently, harbour works, and harbour works not of a small, but on a large scale, were the only works, in the judg-

    765
    ment of the Government and the judgment of everyone who had any experience in the matter, upon which convict labour could be usefully employed. That being so, Commissioners were now engaged in inquiring where convict labour could be best utilized. The matter must not be argued as a question of the merits of Dover Harbour; but it must be discussed from this point of view—that they must find work for the convicts, and could they find better work for them? The claims of two harbours had been put forward as deserving of first consideration—namely, the one at Dover, and the other at Filey. Filey, however, was considered to be second in importance to Dover, and he might state why it was that the Government had selected Dover first. In regard to Filey, nothing had yet been begun. Filey was upon the Yorkshire Coast, at a place where there were no fortifications; and there were many reasons for the determination to give preference to Dover, where a harbour had long been wanted into which the largest description of ships could find its way. Everything ready for going on with the works was to be found at Dover The matter had been considered by a Committee of the Cabinet, consisting of the Secretary of State for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and they had come to the conclusion that the first works that ought to be undertaken were those at Dover. The estimated cost of one plan was £790,000; but that would only be sufficient for the construction of a harbour which would afford comparatively little accommodation for the ironclads. The recommendation of the Committee of 1875, of which his hon. and gallant Friend was a Member, examined some of the highest authorities who could be found, including the Hydrographer of the Navy, Sir A. Clark, the eminent engineer, and Mr. Druce, the engineer at Dover, who was well acquainted with the whole history of Dover Harbour. All those eminent men were in favour of the present proposal; and therefore they had as high authority in support of it as could be desired. It was estimated, however, that the cost would be, at least, £1,000,000, instead of £790,000, for the larger
    766
    harbour it was proposed to construct, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Admiralty. In point of fact, the present plan would double the area of the harbour at an increase of only one-third in the cost. He thought that if they were going to make a harbour at all, it would be much better to make a satisfactory one at a cost of £1,000,000 than to make an inferior one at a cost of £790,000. It would have this additional advantage from his own point of view—that it would take a long time to complete, and would, therefore, be more remunerative to the country for the outlay. This was really the harbour recommended in 1844 and 1846—a harbour quite as extensive as that which had been all along proposed. Therefore, they had not only in support of the present proposal the authority of great engineers who recommended the harbour of 1844, but, what was even more important, it was supported by the most eminent engineers of the present day, who based their estimates upon the experience gained of the cost of making the Admiralty Pier at Dover. Estimates were not generally founded on actual experience of similar work upon the same ground; but the estimate given here was an estimate, founded on practical experience, of the cost of doing similar work on the spot by means of convict labour. It was quite evident that they must find work for the convicts, and this was the kind of work on which they could be most conveniently employed. What they were now asked to pay for was only the first instalment of the expense of building a convict prison. Nothing was asked for the harbour itself. The harbour itself would not be commenced for three years, because it would take three years to build the convict prison. It was estimated that the prison would cost £65,000 or £68,000, and it would be built mainly by the convicts themselves. The foundation would be built by contract, and then the convicts would be left to build the rest of the prison themselves. The convicts would be usefully employed during the next three years in erecting the prison. After that the harbour would be commenced, and the work was expected to occupy about 16 years. His object was not to have the work rapidly done, but rather to have it done slowly; because during the whole of the time the convicts would be usefully em-

    767
    ployed, and his hon. and gallant Friend would have ample opportunity for bringing his great knowledge to bear upon the subject. At all events, during the next three years the Government would not be committed to any definite plan. There would be three years for the purpose of considering, reviewing, and examining the best plan. The Government asked now for £16,150 only for commencing the prison; but he must urge upon the Committee the necessity of commencing the work, or otherwise they would be really driven into a corner. His right hon. Friend and Predecessor (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had more than once pressed upon him the question as to what the Government were going to do with the convicts. The matter was becoming a very serious one; and, under these circumstances, he hoped the Committee would feel that the matter was in their own hands—at any rate, so far as the employment for the next three years was concerned. He, therefore, hoped that the Committee would reject the Amendment and pass the Vote.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) had some cause for complaint, considering that the Papers relating to the works at Dover had only been so recently placed in the hands of Members. He (Sir John Hay) confessed that until that afternoon he had had no opportunity whatever of looking at them, or of ascertaining what the proposal of the Government really was; but, having seen the plans, and heard the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Homo Secretary, he should certainly feel inclined to support the proposal of the Government. He had opposed the former proposal when it was intended to apply a smaller area; but the Papers now produced showed a largely-increased area, which would accommodate ironclads of a much larger draught, and afford a far larger amount of protection for any Fleet which might be stationed there. The importance of the works at Dover was so great that, though he should have been very glad to see the harbour at Filey commenced, he was bound to give the preference to Dover. The works at Dover were of the utmost value for the purpose of communicating with the Continent and for the protection of the Fleet; and that being so, having heard what the
    768
    right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, and believing that in the course of the next three years the area now contemplated, if found to be insufficient, could be increased, he could not support the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. If it were found necessary hereafter to increase the area, he thought there would be very little difficulty in extending it. He hoped the Commission which had been sent down to the North Coast to investigate Peter-head and other places would very soon present their Report; and when the works at Portsmouth and Chatham were completed, he would suggest that it might be possible to consider whether the works at Filey and at Dover might not be proceeded with simultaneously—for instance, the convicts from Portsmouth might be sent to Filey, and those from Chatham to Dover. He should certainly like to see both works in progress; but he could not support his hon. and gallant Friend in the Motion he had made for the reduction of the Vote.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he was glad to give a cordial support to the proposal of the Government; and he rejoiced to find that they had now begun to take active steps for carrying out those harbour works which had so long been necessary in this country. He should have desired that the works at Filey should not have been postponed for so long a period as that which would be occupied in the construction of the harbour at Dover, because 16 years was a very long time for the fishermen and Mercantile Marine on the North-East Coast of England to wait for works which were absolutely necessary for the preservation of their lives and the security of their property. At the same time, he fully admitted the necessity of the works at Dover. He could not forget the construction by the French of their magnificent harbour at Boulogne, and that they were also entering upon a large expenditure in harbour works at other parts of the Coast—Calais, Dunkirk, Brest, Dieppe, and other places. It was quite time, therefore, that they on this side of the Channel should have regard to that which was certainly necessary for the security of their Mercantile Marine, especially in these days of torpedoes—namely, the construction of harbours of refuge, With regard to Dover, he thought the Government had selected an admirable

    769
    place for the formation of a convict establishment. He knew the locality well; and he was satisfied that for many reasons it would be extremely advantageous to have the convicts where it was proposed to place them. They would be remote from the town at a point where an ample supply of water could be provided for them from the Castle above them; and they would have easy access from the Castle Hill by means of a small tunnel, which already existed, to the place where the works were to be commenced. He had had an opportunity of examining the Report of the Committee upon these harbour works in 1844; and he was glad the Government did not propose to confine their operations to the plan proposed at a later date, but that they had gone back to the noble scheme which so many eminent engineers and naval men approved of in 1844. Under that plan ample accommodation would be afforded to the Fleet, and there would be 40 feet of water in a considerable portion of the harbour at the lowest tide. Then, again, in regard to the means of construction, there was an ample supply of shingle at Eye, at no great distance from Dover, which could be utilized in forming the concrete for the foundation of the harbour works. With regard to the convict question, he should have been much more satisfied if he could have received a more assuring answer to the Question he had put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant some time ago. He was then informed that the employment of the Irish convicts had been thought of, but that no practical scheme for their employment had yet been adopted. If there was such great advantage to be derived from the employment of convicts as the Home Secretary had set forth, he did not see why they should not utilize convict labour in Ireland at the earliest possible moment. He hoped that this was only the beginning of the extension of convict employment; and he trusted that it would be carried further than it now was, not only in England, but in Ireland and also in Scotland, where a Commission had lately been sitting to inquire into the best site for a harbour of refuge so much wanted on the North-East Coast of Scotland. In that case, when the site
    770
    was selected, convict labour might also be usefully employed. In conclusion, he could only express his extreme gratification that the Government had determined at once to commence these works.
    SIR EDWARD J. REEDsaid, that, having sat on the Committee of 1875 which inquired into this subject, he felt bound to trouble the Committee with a few words. He was sorry that he had been obliged to separate himself from his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) on the present occasion; but he rejoiced that they had been successful in defeating the scheme then set before the Committee. The ground on which he had endeavoured to defeat that scheme was that he found the Government of that day had proposed to expend nearly £1,000,000 upon a too-contracted and a too-limited harbour. His objection had been not to the construction of a harbour, but to the expenditure of so large a sum of money upon a shallow harbour, instead of expending the money upon a larger and better scheme. The plan of 1875 had the extraordinary characteristic of including a great deal of shallow water, and very little deep water; and he had concluded that the reason for that was a desire to keep the Estimate within the nominal sum of £1,000,000. They were placed in this position—that all the evidence of the military authorities, from the Commander-in-Chief downwards, and the naval authorities, from the First Lord of the Admiralty downwards, went to show that a deep water harbour was necessary; and yet they were called on to approve of a scheme of which nearly four-fifths, if he remembered rightly, consisted of shallow water. The present scheme of the Government included all that he and his friends desired to get in 1875, and even a great deal more; and, therefore, he was at a loss to understand how it happened that his hon. and gallant Friend completely separated himself from anything like an approval of the present proposal. Although he was bound to say that there was some difficulty in considering a scheme in the absence of estimates, and in the present state of the Business of the House, he was not disposed to cavil at it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary said that the present Estimate did not commit the House

    771
    to any particular plan for the harbour itself; and, that being so, he was at a loss to understand why they should withhold their support to the Vote. He asked his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) to remember that in giving approval to this Vote he (Sir Edward J. Reed), at any rate, was not departing from any part of the promises he had considered it his duty to hold out; and he must say that if the scheme submitted in 1875 had, like the present one, comprised more deep water and less shallow water, he should not have opposed it as he did at the time. But, even with regard to shallow water now, he did not forget the fact that dredging in chalk could be more economically conducted now than formerly. He should, therefore, support the Vote.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had always taken great interest in Dover Harbour; and he had always thought that if the harbour was to be made, it ought not to be made by a Company, but, as far as possible, by the Government, who ought to make a harbour worthy of the nation. Looking at the present scheme in all the circumstances under which it was proposed, he thought it was the best way in which the matter could be dealt with. Nobody would deny that a harbour for the protection of their ships was absolutely necessary; and this consideration would have great weight, not only for ships of war, but also for ships of all kinds, for the trade and commerce of the country. Believing that the scheme the Government had now put forward was one that, if properly and promptly carried out, was calculated to be of great benefit to the country, he should, therefore, cordially support the Vote.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was strongly in favour of such works as the present for the employment of convict labour; and he thought the observations of the Home Secretary were very just and well-considered in regard to the great question of the employment of convicts. It was a matter of great importance to employ convicts on works that were not of a brutalizing and degrading character, such as much of the work on which convicts had been employed in past years within the walls of the prisons. It was unquestionably the case, where they had men to deal with of the character of these convicts, that
    772
    they should, as far as possible, provide outdoor employment for them, and nothing could be better suited for their employment than public works in the nature of harbours. He, therefore, trusted that convicts would not only now, but for many years to come, be employed all around the Coast on works of this description. But when he came to the question of expense, he was inclined to think that the reason assigned for dissenting from the proposed reduction was one which told rather in the opposite direction. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) said that this item in the present Vote really did not bind the Committee, or the House, to any definite scheme. That was quite true; but, at the same time, it did not bind the Committee to any definite maximum, and past experience convinced persons who had watched these matters that revised Estimates generally meant enlarged Estimates, and they had no assurance at all what would be the amount of money expended before the works were finished. The expenditure upon the works at Holyhead, Plymouth, and other places had all been largely in excess of the Estimate, and so they unquestionably would in the case of Dover. He, therefore, thought it would be well to ascertain from the Government what the outside expenditure was likely to be in connection with this Vote, because there were other places besides Dover which had a claim upon the Treasury for harbour works—not only Filey and Peterhead, but places elsewhere. The aspect in which the question presented itself to him was that of the unfortunate taxpayer—he did not mean the British taxpayer, but the Irish taxpayer, who was asked to assent to Votes like this year after year, and who saw millions spent on public works in Great Britain, but found the greatest difficulty not only in getting money from the Exchequer for expenditure in Ireland, but even in getting the assent of the Government to the expenditure of its own money. He wished to obtain an assurance from the Government that the same considerations which the Home Secretary said had actuated the Government in respect to Dover Harbour would be allowed to have equal weight on the other side of the Channel. The convict establishment at Spike Island

    773
    was to be done away with, or had practically been done away with, and convicts were no longer to be employed in that neighbourhood. He, therefore, hoped that similar works would be undertaken in Ireland to those which had been started, or were proposed, for Dover. He would not go into any de-tails upon the question; but, of course, Galway Bay would at once suggest itself to every mind. He hoped that before the Irish Members were asked to vote away the public money they would have some assurance that what was sauce for the English "goose" should be sauce for the Irish "gander." Before he sat down he was anxious to submit one or two financial points for the consideration of the Secretary to the Treasury. In the first place, he noticed a departure from the recognized financial rule in regard to money raised for the service of the Vote. There was an item under the head of repayment of Western Australia for Colonial convicts which amounted to £3,360. That sum was taken in aid of the Vote, and was a complete departure from the system adopted in regard to the Civil Service Estimates ordinarily. No doubt, it was adopted in regard to the Army and Navy Estimates; but it had been adopted only tentatively, and it had been decided not to extend the practice to the Civil Service Estimates. Then, the produce of prison labour was set down at £15,000; but the Financial Secretary knew as well as he did that they would never get £15,000 out of that service, or anything like £10,000. He believed that £10,500 was the highest figure it had ever reached. With regard to this question of prison labour, it would be in the recollection of the Financial Secretary that the Committee of Public Accounts recommended that there should be some consultation between the different Departments as to the mode in which the figures given in connection with this matter should be checked; be cause the Comptroller and Auditor General expressed great dissatisfaction at the materials furnished to him in support of the credits given to different prisons under this head. There were two or three things which called for criticism and remark; but he would simply ask the Financial Secretary how it was, if the Surveyor General of Prisons was to have a maximum of
    774
    £1,400 a-year, that there was charged for him only £1,000 last year, and only £1,000 this? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be able to explain the matter.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, he was one of those who thought that more harbours were required, especially in the Channel, and who were in favour of the construction of harbours whenever they were really necessary. But the attention of Her Majesty's Government seemed to be concentrated upon the improvement of the harbour at Dover, to the exclusion of harbours needed elsewhere. He admitted the great necessity which existed for a harbour of sufficient capacity at Dover, for the reason, amongst others, mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay)—namely, the creation of large harbours on the other side of the Channel; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had told them they might console themselves for voting this portion—£16,150—of the total Estimate of £68,650, because it would be 16 years before the whole sum would be expended. He ventured to think that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had given reasons for a very considerable re-casting of the policy of the Government. Holyhead Harbour took 19 years to construct, when it might have been made useful for shipping in a much shorter period. Why did the Government come down and say it was most essential to give a harbour at Dover, and that, practically, it was the only place they could take in hand, and then say they must take 16 years to complete the work of works, when every practical man knew that it could be done in four? He was not sure that it was desirable to employ convict labour on works at places where there was a large population. The establishment of a convict prison at Dover would probably have the effect of damaging its position as a watering place. However, the Government seemed to think otherwise; but if convicts were to be employed there at all, surely the work should be brought to an end in the shortest possible time, and not be dawdled over for a great number of years. He hoped they would be assured that it was the policy of the Government, whenever they entered upon works of

    775
    great public utility, to have them finished at the earliest possible time.
    MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of discussing the question whether a harbour should be constructed at Dover, because that had long ago been settled. The Admiralty Pier at Dover had been, and was still, a most effective portion of the works there; it had enabled them to conduct communications with foreign countries, on the whole, very fairly; but there were no means of using one side of that Pier when the wind blew from the East, nor the other side when it blew from the West; consequently, the embarkation of troops could never take place there, and the men had to be sent on board at Sheerness and other places. Vessels had been driven on shore there in an East wind and broken up; and it was, therefore, plain that there was a necessity for the work being taken in hand, and at once. He was sorry his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) was still opposed to these works, and he believed he was the sole objector to the scheme. He was obliged to correct his hon. and gallant Friend with regard to one statement he had made—namely, that the Duke of Wellington never gave an opinion in favour of a harbour at Dover. In reply to Questions put to him before the Royal Commission of 1843, the Duke said, with reference to the construction of a harbour between Portsmouth and the Downs—
    "A harbour between Portsmouth and the Downs is absolutely necessary."
    In answer to the Question whether the Downs would not do, he said—
    "Dover Roads are a secure place in northerly and easterly winds, but a dangerous place when the wind is from the South-West;"
    and he went on to say that he thought a harbour at Dover not only desirable, but absolutely necessary. Since the time when the Duke of Wellington expressed that opinion, vessels of almost all classes had enormously increased in size, and steamships had correspondingly increased in number. The reasons which formerly existed had now much greater weight, because a harbour was required which would accommodate vessels of great draught of water, and which would serve also as a coaling station, for, as hon. Members would be aware, it was impossible for ships to coal in
    776
    the Downs. He thought it right to put the hon. and gallant Gentleman right in another respect. He said that the Committee which reported in favour of the scheme were not unanimous. That was quite true; but who was it that opposed it? It was the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) himself. It was true that his hon. and gallant Friend had submitted that a greater depth of water should be given than that proposed; but that was now part of the Government plan. In 1875, owing to the financial considerations which always controlled the Treasury Bench, a smaller harbour was proposed, and the result was a harbour inadequate for the purpose for which it was intended. Since that time the matter had been under consideration again, and it had been resolved to increase the size of the harbour. The present Government, in his opinion, were very much to be congratulated upon having brought this question to a practical point, although he was bound to say that he wished the work could be completed in a shorter period than that mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He did not think the question was entirely one of the employment of convicts; but their employment might be a good thing so far as the reduction of cost was concerned. The original Estimate had been largely reduced by this plan, as also by the employment of concrete instead of stone. He believed that if the late Government had not been so tied down by financial considerations, the work of 1875 might have been nearly completed by this time. He trusted that the 16 years assumed now would prove to be a large over-estimate of the time required to finish the work; because it could not be denied that, with the harbours opposite on the coast of France, it was indispensable that, without unnecessary delay, there should be some place of ambush and refuge for our ironclads, as well as shelter for the ships of commerce that were always passing through the Downs.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, if the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) went to a Division he should certainly vote with him, notwithstanding the speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

    777
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in advocating this Vote, did so on the ground that there were a certain number of convicts for whom it was necessary that some outdoor occupation should be found. That was one of the most formidable declarations he had ever heard, because it was probable that they could have convicts for a considerable time for whom, upon the principle laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it would always be necessary to find employment—that was to say, whether the construction of harbours was desirable and useful or not, work would have to be found, and money would have to be spent in order to employ them. It was a most preposterous declaration for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make. With regard to this particular work, he was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) congratulating the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the scheme of the Government. He should have thought that the presence of a large number of convicts would have been regarded by the inhabitants of Dover with feelings of anything but satisfaction; however, they were the best judges of their own affairs. He thought they were bound to vote for the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because either the harbour at Dover was desirable or it was not; if it was not, it was of no use to waste the public money upon it; and if it was desirable, then the harbour ought to be made at once, and the work not extended over this long period of 16 years. There was no doubt that the work could be done in two or three years; but the Home Secretary said—"No. We must go on slowly, because these convicts have to be employed." For these reasons, he said the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman should receive the support of the Committee.
    MR. MACFARLANEasked if the Government had really estimated the cost of convict labour as compared with that of free labour? His own impression was that some of the prisons built by convicts had cost much more than they would have done had they been built by free labour. He hoped that point had been taken into consideration; because, however desirable it might be to find employment for convicts, he was quite sure that the tax-
    778
    payers were not anxious to build at a higher cost than was necessary. He saw nothing to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon in the fact that three years would be required to build barracks, and 16 in which to construct the harbour. It had been admitted ever since 1844 that a harbour was necessary at Dover; and yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman, upwards of 30 years afterwards, said it would not be finished for 19 years.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Government had been guided in this case by the opinion of men most experienced in such matters; and he begged to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Estimate which had been made showed that the work done by convicts would be much cheaper than by free labour. He did not like to pledge him self to a particular amount; but he had no doubt whatever that a considerable saving would be effected by the employment of convict labour. He pointed out that this proposal would never have been made unless the Government were able, first, to make use of convicts; and, secondly, to do so at a cheap rate, so that the question lay between doing the work in that way, and not doing it at all. He believed hon. Members would perceive a very considerable advantage in spreading the cost of the work over a number of years. There was one point of a financial character which was important in considering this matter. There was already a certain amount of revenue from Dover Harbour; and in the course of the time mentioned, he believed, without pledging himself, because Estimates were sometimes deceptive, that an amount would be received from the harbour not far short of the interest on one-half the cost of the work.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he was surprised that a work of such great importance as the construction of a harbour at Dover should be extended over a period of 19 years; and he believed, if the question were put to the House, that it would not consent to the work occupying any longer time than was absolutely necessary for finishing it. It was well known that, at the present moment, the ships of their Navy could not find a place where they could lie that was protected from torpedoes—that was

    779
    to say, a land-locked harbour. There was one point which he desired to raise, and which he trusted would be taken into account before the Estimates of next year were made. The general plan of the works had, he believed, been approved, and it was settled that convicts would be employed. He asked whether the Government would not put the convicts to work first at the east end of the harbour, so that they might not get mixed up with the free labourers on the other side? He believed that plan would be very convenient, inasmuch as the convicts would then be at work close to the barracks. With regard to the time occupied in completing the work, he felt satisfied that when once it had been begun, the country would not be contented to wait for 19 years to see it finished.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURpointed out to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) that the Duke of Wellington had not expressed himself in favour of a harbour at Dover; his evidence was more in favour of a harbour near Dungeness. He contended that the works at Dover would cost nearer £5,000,000 than £1,000,000; and he would remind the Committee that Dover Pier cost £1,000,000, although the original Estimate was £276,000. The Home Secretary had brought forward a number of plans in support of his view; but he (Sir George Balfour) placed little reliance upon them, because it was well known that they could get plans in any number from engineers, so long as there was money to be spent. His view was, that it would be better to spend a large sum of money on the construction of several harbours, so as to provide many refuges along our Coasts, than to spend it all upon one harbour in a corner of the Kingdom. He repeated his opinion with regard to Dover, that it was by no means the most suitable place for the object they had in view; and he would oppose this project at present and in future, although he knew that, when once the Government took up a question and began to work it, it was useless to expect any alteration of the scheme they had set their minds upon. At that late period of the Session, and in that thin House, and as those to whom he had looked for support were not present, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, although he should have felt it
    780
    his duty, under other circumstances, to divide the Committee as a protest against the Government involving the country in an expenditure of at least £5,000,000.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) £89,381, to complete the sum for the Irish Land Commission.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he had given Notice that he would move to reduce this Vote by £1,000. He did not mean, however, to go to a Division; but he wished to avail himself of the opportunity of making a few observations on the Land Question itself. There were some Gentlemen, altogether apart from the Irish Members, who were interested in the subject, and they had been in hopes a proper opportunity would have been given for discussion. It would be most inconvenient, at that time of the Session, to enter upon a protracted discussion; indeed, it would be almost cruel to attempt to keep the Committee long upon this subject. Hon. Members were aware that the House of Lords last Session appointed a Committee to inquire into the working of the Land Act. The House of Commons became quite hysterical, and passed a Resolution expressing disapproval of the appointment of the Committee. That Committee produced a Report, a most valuable, and interesting, and highly instructive Report to those interested in the question. There were three charges against the Land Commission which could be deduced from the Report of the Lord's Committee. The Committee charged the Irish Land Commission with, in the first place, a certain measure of corruption; in the second place, with incompetency; and, in the third place, with acting capriciously. He thought the first charge—namely, that of corruption, was not borne out by the evidence they had gathered; and he maintained that a Committee, such as that he was referring to, ought not to make wholesale charges against a body of public servants unless they were prepared to substantiate them. It was the easiest thing in the world to make a general denunciation; but it was a very difficult thing to prove it. If the critics of the Irish Land Commission had any distinct charges to make they should give the date, the time, and the circumstance; because if the accusations

    781
    were to be substantiated, it would be the duty of the Government to censure the Commissioners, and it might be to dismiss them. In the absence of any distinct charge of corruption, it was unfair to a body of public men, who had very onerous duties to discharge, that they should have these reckless accusations made against them. The next accusation against the Land Commissioners was that they were incompetent; and he thought there was better ground for that charge than there was for the first. Although they might not be incompetent men, he believed the Sub-Commissioners had scarcely been competent for the work entrusted to them. There had been too great a preponderance of the legal element; and he was not altogether sure that political considerations had not influenced some of the appointments. Still, they must remember that the Irish Executive were pressed to make the appointments with the greatest possible speed. Both in the interest of the landlord, of the tenant, and of the country generally, it was necessary the work should be done; and, he believed, in their desire to secure expedition, the Executive had, in some instances, failed to get the best men. He could find every reasonable excuse and explanation for some of the appointments not being altogether of a kind they could have wished. The third accusation was the most important, for it was that the Land Commissioners had been capricious in their decisions. He thought that charge was completely made out. Unquestionably, the decisions of the Commissioners had not been uniform. The Commissioners had not been guided by any principle. The want of uniformity was not visible only here and there, but cases could be cited from all parts of the country. He had had numerous letters, both from landlords and tenants, giving information of most contradictory cases. A piece of land of a certain value, and with certain facilities of situation, was valued by one set of Commissioners at a given price; while another piece of land of the same quality, and held under identically the same conditions, was valued at a very different price. In one instance, the reductions made in the rents were from 6 to 10 per cent. and in other instances 20, or above 20 per cent. It was impossible for such a want of uniformity to exist
    782
    and not create discontent. The landlord whose rents had been largely reduced felt aggrieved, and the tenant whose rent had been least reduced felt equally aggrieved. This dissatisfaction was widespread and deep, and would in time drive Parliament to fresh legislation. This capriciousness arose because the Commissioners had no definite principle on which to go in valuing land. The Government refused to define a fair rout when the Land Act was being passed. They said it could not be done. There was as much difficulty in settling what a fair rent was as in settling what was agency under the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill. Parliament relegated the work to the Chief Commissioners. The Chief Commissioners could not possibly do the work themselves, and they had been obliged to relegate it to Sub-Commissioners. The consequence was—to use the expressive language of Professor Baldwin—that some 90 men had been let loose on the property of the tenantry of Ireland without anything to guide them. He (Mr. Cowen) had no hesitation in saying that anyone who had studied the subject would admit that serious injustice had been done to both sides. He did not say that rents had been reduced too much or too little; but that on account of the want of a principle to guide the Commissioners great inequality existed, and, consequently, dissatisfaction. When Parliament refused to fix a fair rent, but relegated the task to a Commission, that desperate body—the Land League—hit upon a plan by which the omission might be supplied. When the Land Bill became law, his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) wrote a textbook for the Irish tenants, showing them the way in which they could best avail themselves of its privileges. Recognizing the difficulty of the situation, the promoters of the League called a Convention, and resolved to get up a series of test cases. They authorized their agents throughout the country to collect information. This information was sifted and arranged by land valuers and by lawyers, and cases illustrative of the varied condition of the country were to be submitted to the Chief Commissioners for their decision. The decision of the Commissioners was to be accepted as a guide, and the other tenants were to

    783
    make bargains with their landlords in accordance with these leading cases. That was a fair, wise, and reasonable proposal. The Government refused to allow it to be put in force. They discredited the motives of the members of the Land League, and overturned their organization in the effort they were making to apply the Act. In consequence, the Commissioners never had these chief cases submitted to them, and the recent confusion and discontent were the result. That was not his opinion; but it was the opinion of the Land Commissioners themselves. Let the Committee listen to and consider the remarkable extract he was now going to read. The Lords' Report was felt to be so damaging to the Commissioners that Mr. Justice O'Hagan and his Colleagues had gone out of their way to answer the Report of the Peers. This was a most unusual circumstance. He did not suppose that a case of the kind had ever occurred in the country before of a Judicial Body answering a Committee of Parliament. But it had been done. The Report of the Lords' Committee contained the following clause—which was only a condensed expression of what he (Mr. Cowen) bad just been saying—
    "The Committee cannot but look with great regret upon the course adopted in settling judicial rents under the Act. This duty, the most important, and at the same time the most difficult to be discharged under the Act, was, in the first instance, assigned by Parliament to the three Commissioners named in the Act, whose names and standing were stated to be a sufficient guarantee that the duty would be effectively and impartially discharged. The Commissioners, however, proceeded to delegate the whole of this duty to the Sub-Commissioners appointed under the Act, who now number 85. And they made this delegation without having themselves heard any of the cases in the first instance, in the course of which hearing they might have enunciated some general principles to be followed, or established some precedents to serve as examples."
    The Commissioners made the following answer to this clause:—
    "If they had been so asked, they would have stated as follows:—When the Land Commissioners, after having, in a space of less than two months, completed the task of framing Rules and forming and organizing their staff, were approaching their practical work in the month of October, 1881, it was announced publicly by the leading members of the Land League that they would select certain cases, which they termed test cases, and bring them into Court, in order to ascertain practically in what manner
    784
    the Statute would be carried into effect. Being selected as test cases, it was to be presumed that they would present some features the decisions upon which might govern many others. The Commissioners, therefore, resolved to sit and hear them in person. But before the opportunity arose, the Land League was declared illegal; and the intention of bringing for ward the test cases in question was abandoned. The cases first coming into Court had no special character. They were ordinary cases, small in area and value."
    There never probably was a more complete vindication of a body of politicians by a Judicial Court than the vindication of the Land League by the Land Commissioners. The English people did not follow public matters consecutively. They forgot one week what took place the week before. The mass of Englishmen had a dim idea that the Land League was a most reprehensible organization, and nothing that even the Irish Land Commissioners could say would alter that opinion. When the League announced its determination to select these test cases, the Prime Minister went down to Leeds and made a most mischievous speech to an applauding audience—denouncing the conduct of the Irish Members, and intimating in a significant manner that the resources of civilization were not yet exhausted. Immediately following this speech the Chief Secretary for Ireland hurried over from Dublin. A Cabinet Council was suddenly summoned, and he returned with authority to issue warrants wholesale. His hon. Friends the Members for Cork and Roscommon, Mr. Dillon, and several hundred other Irishmen were sent to gaol. In the course of a short time 1,000 men were imprisoned in this way without trial; and all the machinery that the League had organized for getting up the test cases—which the Commissioners now say would have been of such service to them—was rudely broken up. And what had followed? As soon as the leading members of the League were incarcerated, popular indignation arose, and there was no one to guide it. From agitation the people drifted into conspiracy, and from conspiracy to crime. They had the terrible and melancholy records of the last two years to look back upon as the consequence of the hasty and unjustifiable exercise of authority on the part of the Government which had led to the breaking up of the League and the wholesale arrest of its members. If the project of

    785
    the League had gone forward, if the test cases had been submitted to the Commissioners, the course of the Land Act would have been much smoother, its cost much less, and its results vastly superior to what they had been. He did not know how far it was possible for any action that the Government could take, or that the Land Commissioners could take, to remedy the inequality and uncertainty; but of this he was quite sure—that the fact of that want of uniformity existing was the strongest possible reason for an alteration of the Land Act. He did not propose to enter into that discussion now; but, so far as the Land Commissioners were concerned, there was one point in regard to which he thought they were open to strong censure—they had not in any way encouraged the carrying out of the Purchase Clauses; they had given no stimulus to those clauses; and he thought the Committee could find a reason for that in the words of Mr. Litton, who might be taken to fairly represent the feelings of the Government on this subject, and who was a typical Representative of the Irish Liberals. Mr. Litton had declared that to encourage the establishment of a peasant proprietary would be largely to promote the movement for the Repeal of the Union. Mr. Litton thought that if they established an independent peasantry in Ireland they would get political power that would be used in the direction of separation. He (Mr. Cowen) thought it would have a very opposite tendency; but, still, Mr. Litton had given expression to the opinion quoted, and the consequence was that this section of the Land Act, to which all parties looked forward most hopefully, had least opportunity of being carried into operation. He did not know how far the Government could use their influence with the Land Commissioners to stimulate the operation of the Purchase Clauses; but he maintained that they ought to do something to effect that which the Irish people had very greatly at heart. The Land Act itself was a new departure in the social legislation of this country, and its justification was only to be tested by its success. Now, had it been successful? Probably, it was too soon to pronounce a decided opinion; but certainly it had not come up to the anticipations of its promoters. It had dis-
    786
    appointed all parties, opponents as well as supporters. The Government said it would lead to a better payment of rent. He believed rent was being paid better; but whether that was a consequence of the Land Act or of better times he could not say. The Government said they believed the Land Act would increase the price of land; but that, certainly, had not been the case, because land was now practically unsaleable, and its value was very seriously depreciated. The Land League proposed to buy the land at 21 or 22 years' purchase; but now an owner could not get more than 13 or 14 years' purchase. A few years ago the sale of land in the Landed Estates Court amounted to about £1,000,000 a-year; but he did not suppose it now amounted to more than £100,000. In respect, therefore, to the sale of land the Act had not been successful. It had led to better payment of rent; but it had not led to an increased value of land in Ireland. Another defect of the Act he would name. It had not reached the very class it was most desirable to help. It had benefited the comparatively well-to-do peasantry; but it had in no way served the starving cottiers of the West and South. If legislation had to reach them, it would have to be of another kind. The Land Act was said to be a new departure in legislation. The Prime Minister asserted that its justification would be its success, and that success would lead to the establishment of social contentment and political repose. Would anybody undertake to say that there was social contentment in Ireland at the present time, or that there was political repose? The Irish people were living under the very hardest Coercion Laws that were known in Europe. They were kept down on all sides by a ruthless and unbending military and police administration. If the Land Act had produced the contentment that was expected from it, the Government ought to be able to abandon these repressive laws. If they could do that and place the Irish people in the same position as the English, giving them equal liberty, then they might say the Act had been successful. But as they could not, or would not, or dare not do this, they certainly had no grounds for any such contention. Having said that, however, he had no wish to join in that general con-

    787
    demnation that had been indulged in by the Lords' Committee in the Report to which he referred. He believed that in the very urgent and very pressing circumstances the Land Commissioners had striven honestly and fairly to do their duty; and, although they had not realized all that was expected of them, yet they had accomplished certain good, and he hoped that in a comparatively short time they would be able to see good rents fixed.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he did not propose to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) into details; but having regard to the general tenour of his speech he could not imagine stronger condemnation of the Land Act being uttered. It was not his intention to go into the merits of the Vote, or of the remarkable document which was issued by the Land Commissioners in defence of their conduct in answer to the charges brought against them by the Lords' Committee. He considered that the action of Her Majesty's Government in proposing at that period of the Session Votes to which they knew there was not only very serious objection, but to which Notice of opposition on various points had been given, was not only reprehensible in the extreme, but an endeavour to evade that discussion which it was right and proper ought to take place upon such matters in the House of Commons. He was not now going to discuss the details of the failure of the Act, or the salaries of the officers which they were now asked to vote; but he protested against the attempt on the part of the Government to burke all inquiry into this matter. The Government had tried to throw discredit upon all statements made as to the conduct and action of the administrators of the Act, showing, apparently, that they were determined to see nothing but good in what he could only call their misshapen offspring. The 16th of August could not be considered a proper time for taking a Vote of this description; but, aided by their alliance with those to whom they had been lately throwing fresh sops in return for vituperation and insult, the Government hoped in the last few days of the Session to hurry this Vote through Parliament without any serious opposition. That was not the time for entering into a full discussion of a question of such magnitude; and he should
    788
    content himself by simply entering his protest against the action of the Government on this occasion. He thought those who were of the same opinion would best consult their own dignity if they raised no further discussion upon these Votes.
    MR. LEAregretted that this question had been raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen). It would have been better, in his opinion, if the subject had been left over until next Session, when it was to be brought before the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith). He (Mr. Lea), however, did not like to hear the Land Commissioners abused without saying a word in their defence. The hon. Member for Newcastle had said there was great inequality in the decisions arrived at by the Sub-Commissioners. No doubt there was a certain amount of inequality; but it was impossible that the decisions of the Commissioners should agree in every respect. There was considerable difficulty with regard to giving effect to the Act as to the Purchase Clauses. In the first place, he did not know how they were to arrive at the basis for purchase unless they had the fair rent paid. As far as his experience of Irish tenants went, what they desired most was that they should have some reduction of the rent. Many of them had submitted to high rents; but they now wanted the benefit which was to be derived from the decrease of the rent. The hon. Member for Newcastle had said that the Land Act had not been so successful. Well, it had not been as successful as was hoped; but it was an early day to condemn an Act which had only recently been set to work. It certainly had not increased the value of land; but to bring about that result would, of course, be a matter of time. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), in referring to the state of Ireland, undoubtedly admitted that the Land Act had been a considerable benefit to the country in producing the present state of tranquillity. He thought, therefore, that the hon. Member for Newcastle should have admitted that the Act had been of considerable benefit in that respect. In regard to this Vote, there was a question which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant might well be expected to answer—namely, whether or not he

    789
    intended to reduce the number of Sub-Commissioners? Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the state of business required that they should be continued for another year or two? There were a certain number of Sub-Commissioners whose time expired this year. They were appointed annually, he believed; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought the state of business would allow the number to be reduced this year, or whether it would be necessary to continue the present number? Perhaps by-and-bye the right hon. Gentleman would be able to answer that question.
    MR. BULWERsaid, he did not wish to prolong the discussion. He only regretted that the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) was not present, as, knowing the hon. Member's impartiality, he (Mr. Bulwer) would have preferred to make the few observations he was about to make in his presence. He did not concur in what had fallen from the hon. Member as to the charge of corruption against the Sub-Commissioners. The Committee of the House of Lords had attached no such charge to those officials; but that they had charged them with not having properly performed their duties was perfectly true. He (Mr. Bulwer) would hardly call their action "corruption," though he did not feel satisfied with it; and what he wished to point out to the hon. Member for Newcastle was this. The hon. Member had told them, rightly enough, that they could get a great deal by violent conduct from this country, and he referred to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) having "taken off his coat" in this matter; but the hon. Member had forgotten one fact. He (Mr. Bulwer) was not there to defend the Government; but when the hon. Member for Newcastle was abusing the Government for their shortcomings, he had forgotten the motive which induced the hon. Member for the City of Cork to take off his coat. That motive was not to have fair rents fixed. He had an ulterior object, which the hon. Member for Newcastle, even if he had not forgotten it, at any rate had not mentioned, and which most people recognized as a justification for the Government for disturbing the action of the Land League. The hon. Member had said that the Commissioners did not set to work to
    790
    reduce rents, and that they, possibly, were actuated by a spirit of fairness. Well, he did not wish to bring any accusations against them at all; but if they thought their mission was to reduce rents, if his memory served him aright, they had some justification for that opinion. No one could have forgotten the celebrated occasion upon which a Government candidate claimed the support of a constituency in the North of Ireland mainly on the ground that, if he was returned to Parliament, rents would be lowered. The Sub-Commissioners, if they had reduced rents more than they ought to have done, had, therefore, some sort of warrant for their action. He should have expected from a man of the fairness of the hon. Member for Newcastle a speech such as he had delivered. They all knew that the hon. Member had great sympathy with people who took extreme views, so long as they did not violate the law. He (Mr. Bulwer) could not say he had the same sympathy with those people; but the hon. Member had forgotten that those who advocated these extreme views had violated the law. As regarded the Commissioners, he would only add that if they required a defence they would hardly be satisfied with that offered by the hon. Member for Newcastle. The hon. Member had damned everybody all round with faint praise, except the Government, to whom he had given no praise at all.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTwished to say a word as to one point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen). The hon. Member had attributed the failure of the Purchase Clauses to the action or the non-action of the Chief Commissioners, and also to an opinion which had been expressed by Mr. Litton, and this was a most unfortunate impression to allow to go abroad. Well, to his (Colonel Colthurst's) mind the failure of the Land Commissioners to do their duty had not at all affected the Purchase Clauses. The reason of the failure was this—and although the hon. Member had referred to it at the end of his speech he had not given it as the reason—that land was at present practically unsaleable in Ireland. It was not to be expected that people would put land in the market at the present moment unless under pressure of the most dire necessity. Another point was the necessity of quickening

    791
    the appeals. Until some means were devised for enabling appeals to be decided more rapidly by the Chief Commissioners, it was hopeless to expect any action from the Purchase Clauses, for the quicker the work of the Sub-Commissioners—and he was happy to say it was being done quicker and quicker every day—the greater was the block in the Appeal Court; and until they got a judicial rent fixed over the greater part of Ireland, they would not have the Purchase Clauses working. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would bear that in mind. It was not the first time he (Colonel Colthurst) had brought it under his notice. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say, on the part of the Government, that they had taken some steps to enable the Chief Commissioners to dispose more rapidly of the appeals.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he hoped that some statement would be given as to the progress made in fixing fair rents. The last Return which had been presented to the House only went down to May; and it was not a fair thing that they should discuss the Vote without showing how far rents had been fixed up to the present time. Furthermore, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could give them some statement as to the total amount of reduction which had been effected? He found, on looking at this Vote as compared with the Vote of last year, that there was a considerable inflation. The Vote was £157,581, which was an enormous sum, and an increase of £70,000 over the Estimate of last year. It was a most extraordinary increase in the expenses of the working of the Land Commission, and one which could not be looked upon save with horror. The total amount of reduction in rent made annually did not amount to the working expenses of the Commission. Of course, the answer was that the total working expenses would come to an end some time or another, and that the reduction made in the rents would last for 15 years; but his contention was that, as long as the Act was worked in the way in which it was worked year after year, they would have to meet the present amount of expenditure, and that, therefore, the expenditure would be greatly disproportionate to the amount of the
    792
    reduction awarded to the unfortunate tenantry. To his mind, it would be far better for the Government to make to the landlords a present of the capitalized expenses of the Commission—capitalized value of this £150,000 a-year—and to devote it to the reduction of the existing rentals, than to put the unfortunate tenants to the necessity and trouble of law suits, with the accompanying bickerings, and heart-burning, and expenses of surveys, plans, and witnesses, which would swallow up the reduction of rents for some years. Ingenuity could not have devised a more unhappy expedient than the fair rent scheme of the Land Act as a panacea for the misfortunes of the tenants. The more he contemplated the Fair Pent Clauses of the Land Act, the more he was amazed that anybody could have proposed them as a panacea for the evils the country was suffering under. What happened under them? Take the case of a man whose valuation was £20, and who had to pay £30 a-year rent. That man wanted to get a fair rent fixed. He had, in the first place, to get an engineer, surveyor, or valuer, or whatever they might call him, to prepare plans, and specifications, and maps, and so on, at a cost, perhaps, at the least, of £4. Then he went to an attorney, and perhaps had to travel a long way before he could obtain the services of one, losing both time and money. He would have to pay the attorney a few sovereigns more. Then, perhaps, some point of law arose. The attorney refused to be responsible, and the man had to employ a barrister, so that frequently the cost of getting a fair rent fixed would amount to from £8 to £10. How much would his reduction amount to? If his rent was £30, probably he would get it reduced to £28, so that for several years the total amount of his reduction would be swallowed up in his expenses. There then was another point. The hon. Member for Newcastle had referred to the capricious action of the Land Commissioners; and he (Mr. Healy) thoroughly endorsed his statement in that respect. They found that during the period the "No Rent" Manifesto was in force the reductions given were 24 or 25 per cent; and according as the temper of the people was excited, and there was agitation in the country, they found the maximum of reduction, and that thus when the

    793
    country was quiet and the Prevention of Crime Act had been passed they found the percentage of reduction reduced to 24, 23, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, and as low as 15 percent. Capriciousness of the grossest character was apparent. Moreover, he declared that such a proceeding justified the charge made against the Commissioners of corruption. They said that a corrupt Court was a Court influenced by motives other than the abstract questions of law which came before it. In that sense of the word, therefore, he thought the Land Commission Court was a corrupt Court. His contention was that it was a corrupt Court when it showed itself to be influenced by the clamour of landlords on the one side, or the complaints of tenants on the other; and there was the strongest evidence to show that, according as the House of Lords put pressure on in the shape of a debate, or a Motion, or a Committee of Inquiry, as the groans of the landlords went up, so did the backs of the Land Commission weaken, and their reductions decrease. He thought, therefore, hon. Members were justified in saying that the Land Commission Court was a corrupt Court. That it was a capricious Court had been fully established by the reductions which bad been given. He thought the Government were greatly to blame in this matter. Then the House of Lords, for two years, had a Committee sitting upon the Act, and were summoning Sub-Commissioners by the dozen, several of the Land Commissioners, and leading men belonging to the landlord classes. He thought the Government were to blame in not conducting a counter-inquiry from the tenants' point of view, so as to restore the balance and create a counterpoise in the minds of the Land Commissioners. He could not conceive what the Government intended, by the small Motion they had carried in this House, to show that it was injurious to the interests of the Land Act that the House of Lords should institute an inquiry into the operation of the measure, if now they could refrain from holding a counter-inquiry into the grievances of the tenants. It remained on record that the Government had permitted an inquiry into the grievances of the landlords, while they had not promoted or allowed a counter-inquiry into the grievances of the tenants. The result of
    794
    what had taken place was this—that the complaints made by the tenants of Ireland, and the injury they declared they had suffered, through their representatives, owing to the corrupt conduct of the Land Commissioners, were unknown to the House and to the country, and were closed up in the minds of these unfortunate men, who had not even the newspapers to resort to, so many of them being illiterate; whereas the grievances of the landlords had been published to the world, not only through the Press, but through the influential medium of a Report from the other House. If the Government meant fairly by the Irish tenantry, they should have given them the same facilities, in the shape of an inquiry in this House—they should have given them a tenants' inquiry, as the House of Lords' Committee was a landlords' Committee. They had not done so; and, therefore, he charged upon the Government a desire to cushion the inquiry into the grievances of the tenants; whereas "another place" was taking the greatest care of the interests of the landlords. They would have, by-and-bye, a statement as to these fair rents, and also as to the annual increase in the reduction. Another point he would like to draw attention to was the extraordinary difference which occurred in the different Provinces in the fixing of fair rents. Far be it from him, as an Ulster Member, to complain of the inequalities, as far as they improved the condition of the Northern Province; but he could not help commenting on the fact that, according to last month's Reports, there were 1,700 cases of judicial rents fixed in the Province of Ulster; whereas, when they went to Connaught and Munster, there were only 300 in the one, and 500 in the other. He was aware that there had been many more cases sent in from Ulster than from any other of the four Provinces; but, surely, the Government ought to be as desirous of settling the rents in the other Provinces as in Ulster. He did not wish to have a single Land Commissioner in Ulster moved; but he did desire that there should be as many Land Commissioners sent to the other Provinces as were sent to Ulster. If he turned to Leinster, what did he find? Why, that a Commission which had been operating in various other places, after hearing cases in the Midland

    795
    Counties, and having had tenant farmers withdraw from cases in consequence of the evidence of men like Professor Baldwin in favour of men like Colonel King-Harman, was removed to Kildare, Dublin, Wicklow, Louth, &c.; and he wished to know why that Commission alone should he called upon to operate over those areas? He thought it unfair and invidious to say that a Commission of the character which was distrusted in a portion of the Island should he sent to those places. He would like to call attention to what he thought was a growing evil in the case of this Land Commission. In his opinion, the inquiries before it were degenerating into a complete farce. The evidence of the landlord and tenant was duly heard; but, practically, the Commissioners paid no attention whatever to it. The tenant got up, his valuer was sworn, and handed in plans and specifications of the improvements, drains, and reclamations he had made; but all that did not matter a snuff to the Commissioners. They took no more notice of the tenant's evidence, or that of his valuator, than if they were talking Sanscrit. It would be much better, rather than this farce should be gone through time after time, if the tenant should send in his claim and evidence on affidavit, and that the statement of the landlord should be taken in the same way. Evidence of this kind would be quite as valuable to the Commissioners, seeing the manner in which they treated evidence, as that taken under the present system. No attention was paid to evidence; the desire of the Commissioners being to get through the matter as quickly as possible in a hap-hazard way. He would put it to the Government to abolish the inquiry in open Court altogether, and let the whole matter be conducted by affidavit. He had spoken with many tenant farmers, particularly with farmers from the loyal Province—from the County Tyrone. He had had a letter from one who might be taken as a representative farmer on the subject. This farmer said he had been put to great inconvenience in getting a detailed statement as to how much land he had reclaimed in the past, what the cost had been, how many fences he had put up, and how many drains he had constructed, and in the decision given this statement had been wholly ignored. The decision given had apparently taken
    796
    no note as to whether the man had been a hard worker and a reclaimer of land, or whether he had never occupied himself in works of this kind at all. That corresponded with the Report of the House of Lords' Committee. That Report stated that the man who had made improvements very frequently had not his rent decreased at all; whereas the man who had never done anything on his holding to improve it, seemingly for his own wrong-doing and waste, had had his rent reduced. That opinion prevailed all over the country—namely, that the tenants did not get any return or allowance for their improvements. The hon. Member for Newcastle had pointed out that the Land Commissioners had taken the extraordinary course of answering the House of Lords in a Minute which they issued, through the medium of a letter to the Chief Secretary. The obsequiousness of the Commissioners to the House of Lords was very extraordinary; but when any person in the humble position of a Representative like himself—a Member of the House of Commons—attempted to put any Question whatsoever, they rode off on the high horse and vanished in the cerulean distance. He had put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman as to the fixing of a fair rent; a Question exactly the same as the Lords had put over and over again. He had had to put that Question three times over, and he had to indulge in what those Gentlemen called vituperative language, before he could get any answer. The result was the strongest justification of the vituperation. If he found that vituperation had had such a magnetic effect upon the Government, and if other people found that vituperation was effective, whereas no amount of mild Questions produced any result, they might expect vituperation to become much more general than it had been in the past. He would put the Committee in possession of the facts of the case. The case to which he had referred was that in which a sub-tenant, named Driscoll, had rented from a middleman named Hall the half of a holding. Hall paid £10 10 s. for the whole of the holding, and for the half he charged £12. An application for a reduction of rent was made; but they had confirmed the rent, dismissing the application, and the ground on which they did that was that Driscoll had acted unreasonably,

    797
    because he took the land from Hall on condition that he was to give it up when wanted, and that he refused to give it up. He (Mr. Healy) had put a Question on the case, and had got an answer that the Land Commissioners did not think it in accordance with their judicial position to give reasons for their decisions. But he indulged in so-called vituperative language, he was proud to say, and he extracted a defence from the Land Commissioners, which defence the House had heard from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. They said that 14 years ago Driscoll took the land from Hall, on condition that he was to give it up when wanted; and the Land Commissioners held that in refusing to give it up he had acted unreasonably, and that he should be held to his bargain. They gave that opinion without having heard any evidence as to the character of the land, and without having called the landlord—that was to say, the middleman, Hall, although they called his wife. The husband was in Court at the time; but no attempt was made to call him, and they did not hear the sub-tenant as to value. They heard him upon no question whatever, save the legal question of taking the holding; and then, because they considered him unreasonable in refusing possession of the holding, they fixed the rent he had to pay at 30 s. more for half the land than the middleman himself had to pay to Lord Bantry for the whole of it. What was the unreasonableness? They said the land was taken for a temporary purpose; but he would leave the Committee to judge of that, when he said that that temporary purpose lasted for 14 years. If the conditions had only remained in force a fortnight, no doubt the agreement as to the temporary purpose would have been valid; but in this case they remained in existence for 14 years. He held the land to make a living out of it, and it was considered by the Land Commissioners unreasonable conduct to hold the land as the Act allowed him to hold it. What was unreasonable in his conduct? Previous to the passing of the Land Act every yearly tenancy was held subject to notice to quit. Driscoll had received two or three notices; but the writ of ejectment was not carried out; and, therefore, it appeared to him that this man, even in the opinion of the Land Com-
    798
    missioners, was really the tenant, because he had not taken the land for temporary purposes, and, the notice to quit having been issued, the landlord did not proceed to turn him out of the land. The question was this—the man having had the land, ought the Commissioners to have sent a valuer or not? They considered that his conduct was unreasonable; but he had paid his rent so punctually that he was unable to get from the middleman the benefit of the Arrears Act; whereas the middleman could get the benefit of it, and actually had his own arrears to Lord Bantry wiped off under the Act, although, in point of fact, he was getting from Driscoll 30 s. a-year more rent than he was himself paying to Lord Bantry. This, too, although it was proved by the middleman's wife that she made out of the hay alone in one year £11. And then the unfortunate sub-tenant, who had to pay 30 s. a-year more than Hall paid for twice as much land, could not get the benefit of the Land Act, because he took the land 14 years ago for a temporary purpose, forsooth! Was not that decision in the very teeth of the Land Act, which said that not even against the middleman, but against the head landlord, a man should be able to retain land which he took as a tenant? What was the defence of the Land Commission? He would not complain if the Land Commissioners had acknowledged that they had made a mistake in this case, and had said that they did not send a valuer because of the pressure of business, or something else, and that they had got into a hole and very much regretted what they had done. But they had assumed a kind of infallibility—that everything done was done properly; that all the parties were heard; and that the decision was a fair one; that Driscoll's conduct was unreasonable; and that to ask a Question in Parliament in review of their decision was not proper. The Commissioners ought to have come with bated breath and whispering humbleness and made an apology for their action; and he had brought this matter forward, not for the sake of a particular case, but because he believed it was of a piece with the action of the Commissioners in very many cases. It was very seldom that a tenant was able to get into the hands of a Member of Parliament a complete statement of

    799
    his case, so that it might be placed before the House in a compendious form; and, therefore, how many cases must there have been of hardship of a similar hind owing to the action of the Commissioners? He had put the matter forward, and, instead of being met with a courteous answer, he was told that he had indulged in vituperation. He thought the Chief Secretary would do well to wash his hands of the Commissioners, and to say that he did not stand here as their defender, and to throw up the sponge in their defence, for there could be no defence for their action in this matter. The Chief Secretary had argued in defence that the rent had remained unaltered for a considerable time, and, therefore, that showed the fairness of it. Why, would it not remain unaltered when there was notice to quit? It was no defence to say that the rent had been paid, and had remained unaltered for a considerable time, when, if there had been any default, the tenant would have been ejected, and turned on the world.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) had issued two or three challenges of a practical nature, and before he sat down he would certainly gratify the hon. Member's curiosity. He must at once protest against some of the language the hon. Member had used—most abusive in tone, violent and immoderate. The hon. Member said the conduct of the Land Commissioners was corrupt and capricious; and the reason he gave was, that they were so susceptible to pressure, both from landlords and tenants, that they varied very much in the nature of their decisions in obedience to that pressure; and he understood him to say that the tendency of their action had been to give less and less to the tenants. Upon that point it could not be expected that a private Member should have very exact statistics; and there was no doubt that during the first six months of the existence of the Land Commissioners very large reductions were given; but it could not be said that the general tendency had been that which the hon. Member believed. Very large reductions were given from the first sittings of the Commissioners up to January 28, 1882, averaging 23·6 per cent; but since then there had been a remarkable uniformity. The first set of dates was from January 28 to April 15, and the reduc-
    800
    tions were, on an average, 20·5; from April 15 to May 31, 21·5 percent; in June, 20·4 percent; in July, 19·7 per cent; in August, which included a very small number of cases, the average was 18·2 per cent. The average for the whole of the year 1882 was 20·5 per cent. After August came the Vacation; and in September, October, November, and December of last year the average for all Ireland was 19·4 per cent. Then, in January, 1883, the average was 20·1 per cent; in February, 19·99; and in March, 20·6 per cent. or a point higher than it had ever reached since the beginning of 1882. He thought these Returns showed a very remarkable uniformity.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if the right hon. Gentleman would compare the January in one year with the January in the next year?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had not got the exact figures for January, 1882, but he had figures from the commencement up to January, 1882; and since the first three or four months of the sittings of the Commission there had been an almost absolute uniformity, so that it could hardly be said that there was any sign of the decisions of the Commissioners having been affected by pressure.
    MR. PARNELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman could give the averages since March, 1883?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had not got the averages; but he had a Return of the reductions down to April, 1883. The hon. Member for Monaghan had referred to the great and marked increase in the Vote for the Land Commission. The increase was very great indeed—£157,000, as against £92,000. That was a very large increase; but any person interested in economy must see that the increase was explicable. The increase was in salaries, allowances, and travelling expenses. The extra salaries for Assistant Commissioners amounted to £38,000 a-year, and their travelling expenses amounted to a very large part of the increase—namely, to £25,000 a-year. What was the cause of the increase? It was that in the autumn of last year the Government, under pressure—and very proper and legitimate pressure—from the House of Commons, and from no one more than from the hon. Member

    801
    for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), feeling that the Sub-Commissioners were working much too slowly, tried to quicken their action by the appointment of valuers. That advice, which had been recommended to them by legitimate advisers of the Government, thoroughly disappointed their expectations. After the appointment of one valuer to each Commission the average of cases disposed of, which had been 76 per day, only rose to 77 per day. The Government felt that at that rate the tenants would be kept in a state of suspense which would be cruel; and that from the point of view of what the tenants expected the Act to effect it would be almost a failure; and they determined not to stick at any expense of public money to bring about a different result. The cause of the slow working of the Commissioners was that the legal Commissioners were kept idle for several days in the week through the two lay Commissioners being out valuing; and the Government decided to double the number of lay Commissioners, so that the work might go on pretty much all the week. The effect of that step was at once observable. Almost immediately after the appointment of the new Assistant Commissioners the decisions rose to 116 per day; and after a while, by increase which was perfectly explicable, they rose to 137 per day. The result of this was that the present aspect of the question was satisfactory; and although hon. Members would not allow that, he thought they would allow that it was satisfactory as compared with the apprehensions expressed during the debates on the proceedings of the Land Commission in the autumn of last year. A few months ago fresh applications were coming in very rapidly, and the cases were being decided comparatively slowly. That condition of things was now changed. From the last Return, July 31, which had been presented to both Houses of Parliament, it appeared that there had been altogether 98,034 applications for the fixing of fair rents up to June 30. In July 580 new applications came in, making a total of 98,614. The fair rents fixed in July were 3,912; applications dismissed and struck out, 1,377; and applications withdrawn, 589. The total number of cases disposed of was thus 5,800; and up to July 31 there had been 61,354 cases disposed of
    802
    out of 98,614. That gave reason for hoping that in the course of seven working months the whole of the arrears would be wiped off, so far as the Sub-Commissioners were concerned. 47,266 agreements fixing fair rents had been come to, of which 2,382 were made in July, these making 109,000 cases settled by agreement and by the Land Commission. With regard to the gross reductions of rent, the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had made a very melancholy statement about the comparison between the amount of rental reduced and the gross amount of money spent on the Land Court. Up to the time of the last Return about £195,000 had been spent. What had been the gross direct reductions in consequence of the action of the Land Act? Up to April 30 last the reductions made by the Land Commission amounted to £147,000, and the reductions by agreement amounted to £117,000—total £264,000; and he calculated roughly that since that date reductions amounting to £80,000 at least had been made. So that the total reductions by the direct action of the Courts must by this time amount to something like £345,000 or £350,000. Then as to this comparison between the expenditure on the Land Commission and the reductions made, it must be remembered that some of the reductions would last 15 years, while this very large expenditure was clearly only a temporary expenditure. The hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea) had asked for some definite statement as to the proposals of the Government with regard to a reduction of the expenditure on the Land Commission. He would say, generally, that that was not the first thing in the mind of the Government. The first consideration was that the Courts of First Instance should have settled these cases over the whole of Ireland as soon as possible; and in order to get that done they would look, first, to reductions of rent, and, secondly, to economy. But all the Land Commissioners at this moment had commissions running up to the end of the year; and it was quite clear that if seven or eight months were to wipe off the arrears, there would after that be a great and very sensible reduction in the expenditure. He could say no more than that the reduction would be such as would make the Vote very different

    803
    from what it was this year. As to the work of the Commission, of course, however much hon. Members might differ from the Government as to the amount of the direct effect of the Commission, they would allow that there had been a great deal of indirect effect. There could, he thought, be no doubt that the reductions of rent all over Ireland—spontaneous reductions which, in some cases, extended over the whole of the estates of great landowners—had been considerably extended by the assistance of the Land Courts, so that those reductions, whether large or small, might be put down to the credit of the Land Commission. He did not say there were not other things occurring in Ireland to bring about this result. No questions had been asked about the operation of the Arrears Act, which was now approaching its termination. One cause, by the way, of the increased expenditure this year had been the increased charge for the staff required to work that Act, and which cost he was happy to say would soon come to a finish. Up to the last Return he had received, £710,000 had actually been paid up out of a total of £840,000, and he supposed that by the end of this month the payments would have come pretty nearly to an end.
    MR. PARNELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman could state the amount of arrears wiped off under the Arrears Act, exclusive of the year's rent paid by tenants?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could not do so; but he would endeavour to get the amount.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTasked for information as to the appeals?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the number of appeals lodged in July was 846, making the total 9,996; whereas the number that were heard and withdrawn in the month of July amounted to only 221. That would engage the attention of the Government. There were Legislative difficulties to a very great extent; but he should consider that if by next Session he could not tell a better story to defend himself than he could now he had failed in his duty. He thought it could not be denied that there never was a Parliamentary Committee before which had been engaged in inquiring into the decisions of the Judicial Body, and into every report, well or ill-
    804
    founded, which might have been made in regard to those decisions. Of course, there was a very great difference between answering charges made against a decision on a special occasion and wholesale and sweeping charges as to the principle upon which a large number of decisions were given, especially when those decisions were such as entirely to destroy, if accepted by the country, the authority on which they were made. He hardly thought the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had been sufficiently generous in the criticism he had made upon the Land Commission. The hon. Member, when finding fault with the Commissioners for the manner in which they had answered the charges made by the Committee of the House of Lords, had not taken into account the natural sense of injured pride and self-respect which would be felt by Judges who had intended to discharge their duties conscientiously under extreme difficulties, and who had been placed in a situation nobody else had ever been placed in before. He felt that the charges brought against them were based upon inferior and ex parte evidence—upon evidence which had only been hoard on one side; and the Court which made the charges came to their decision so quickly, that no evidence could be given on the other side. There were most serious accusations made against the Commissioners. He had no wish to enter into a general debate upon the matters at issue between the Lords' Committee and the Land Commission; but he would quote one or two charges as instances of the grave reasons the Land Commission had for not consenting to lie under the imputations cast upon them, which they would have done practically if they had appeared to acquiesce in the charges made by the Lords' Committee. Here was one instance. In their Report the Lords' Committee said that—
    "Little or no difference appeared to have been made, whether the rent was an old rent which had been paid for a number of years, or whether it was a modern rent."
    The Lords' Committee quoted the evidence, and placed a part of it on the body of their Report, which was the only part probably that nine persons out of ten would think of reading. The witness on whose evidence that allegation was based said—

    805
    "I think the principle is to give a reduction varying from 25 to 40 per cent."
    He had just been reading to the Committee the reductions which had been made since January, 1880, and the Committee would remember that those reductions all over Ireland averaged 20 per cent; yet the House of Lords' Committee gravely came forward and endorsed, to a great extent, a charge that the principle upon which the Land Commission was in the habit of acting was to give a reduction varying from 25 to 40 per cent. Then, again, the Lords' Committee charged the Land Commission with about as grave a dereliction of duty as any Judges could possibly commit, for they said that the Commissioners had before them a considerable amount of evidence from which there was much reason to conclude that some of the Sub-Commissioners had adopted, in fixing rents, the simple mathematical process of adding two, three, or four various estimates together, and dividing the value of such estimates by the whole number. They did not say whether this charge was just or not; but the Lords' Committee said—
    "This proceeding, if really followed, is one that involves a grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Sub-Commissioners, and is unjust to the landlord and tenant."
    A more dangerous and formidable manner of mating an accusation by implication he had never heard. All he could say was, that if the House of Lords, in olden days, had settled their appeal cases, and distributed landed estates, in such a manner and upon such evidence as they had adopted here, they would have formed a very different Appeal Body from that they had the credit of being. He could not conceive an attempt more calculated to injure the reputation of public men; and, after all, the reputation of public men was as valuable as any amount of real property. He could not, therefore, understand the reason why the Lords' Committee had attempted to throw away the reputation of public men—for it really amounted to a charge of corruption—upon such miserable evidence as that laid before them. The Assistant Commissioners repudiated the charge as untrue in regard to themselves, and stated that they believed it to be untrue of the Sub-Commissioners. On what evidence was the charge based? It was on the evidence of Professor
    806
    Baldwin. Professor Baldwin himself was charged by another witness with the same conduct; and yet so indifferent were the Lords' Committee to get at the truth of the matter, that when they had Professor Baldwin before them making these charges against other people, they did not appear to have questioned him as to whether he had used the same method himself. Professor Baldwin appeared to have been present upon one occasion in a County Court when a decision was being given, and he said that he came to the conclusion, on the whole, that this was the method adopted by the Commissioners. The charge made by the Lords' Committee had been referred to all the Sub-Commissioners, and he had received from all of those gentlemen a most indignant denial. He must say he thought the Land Commissioners were quite right in placing their denial before the public; and although the course they had adopted, he was ready to allow, was one which was actually unprecedented, it was the only remedy they could take against a great wrong, as unprecedented as any proceeding that had ever been entered into. The Lords' Committee stated that a strong impression prevailed in the country that where the Commissioners did not reduce rents to the point at which they had been reduced by some of the Sub-Commissioners, if they had thereby become unpopular and had been removed to other districts, the changes thus made would have led to still greater reductions. The Lords' Committee went on say that such a feeling was highly unfortunate, and it was much to be regretted that there should have been anything to give rise to it. Now, before the Lords' Committee placed that record on paper, they ought to have examined into the question whether there was any ground for it. It was met by the Commissioners by a flat denial; and, having during 14 or 15 months had the honour of watching Irish affairs in that House, he had come to the conclusion that that sort of pressure had never been used, and that the only pressure which had ever been used with success was the pressure of some Gentlemen generally considered to represent the landlords, who complained not that the reductions had been too large, but that there were gentlemen on the Sub-Commission who had certain antecedents and certain connections

    807
    which did not fit them to discharge the duties in the particular county in which they were placed. But he could not recall a single instance in which a responsible Member of that House had made a representation that the rents were either reduced too much or reduced too little, and that the assertion was listened to by the Commissioners. He would not go through the charges made, or insinuated, by the Committee of the House of Lords, and a number of charges which were flatly denied, and denied with evidence, by the Commissioners. In some cases the charges brought by the Lords' Committee showed the most singular ignorance of the details of the procedure of the Commissioners. The witnesses the House of Lords had before them appeared to him to have been most unhappily chosen for the purpose; and in regard to the drafting of the Report itself, it was just that sort of Report which he could not imagine any body of men attacked by it sitting down quietly under. If the House of Lords had framed such a Report in regard to any of the officials of the High Court of Justice in London, he was satisfied that very few months would have been allowed to pass before the Judges would have repudiated it and made a reply to it. He thought he had now referred to every point which had been raised in the course of the debate.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not referred to the case of Driscoll and Hall.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not think he could go into that matter, and he did not think that it was for a Land Commissioner to enter into a question of that kind. He rather thought if he had had the drafting of their letter that he should have left out the first half of it, and he would not have raised a point which he knew the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) would have been quite acute enough to lay hold of. It would not be right that he should follow the example of the Commissioners, so far as his own time and reputation were concerned, in discussing any one of the 50,000 or 60,000 decisions of the Sub-Commissioners, or of the 2,000 or 3,000 decisions of the Land Commissioners. He was perfectly convinced that if he were to do so, before a month or two had elapsed he would only succeed in ruining his reputation, and of satisfying
    808
    the country that he was not only a very incompetent lawyer, but an exceedingly audacious and self-sufficient speaker. He fully admitted that he was neither able nor qualified to discuss the decisions of the Commissioners. With regard to the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act, to which reference had been made over and over again, he did not think there was any desire on the part of the House, or of hon. Members who had already spoken, to enter into the question why the Purchase Clauses had not been made greater use of. That was a matter which would afford material for a long debate, and would take considerable time to settle. The reasons which he could give might at the proper time be adduced; but they would not be the same as those which had been given that evening. There was one point, however—as to the price at which laud sold—in regard to which the comparatively small experience of the Land Commissioners had, he must say, been rather favourable. Whenever a large sale was proposed the papers were sent to the Treasury, and the Treasury were good enough to communicate them to the Irish Office, to ask its advice as to whether so large a transaction should be entered into; and he had noticed that there had been several large transactions at a very good figure. He had one lying before him then, in which an estate of 231 acres, the rent of which was £344, liable to deduction for quit rent, and so forth, amounting altogether to about £17, so that the rent might be called £325. The purchase money agreed to be paid for that property was £6,300, or as nearly as possible 20 years' purchase, and 20 years' purchase, as a rule, was the price paid in several instances. In point of fact, 19 years' purchase, and something more, was the average in a large number of cases.
    MR. PARNELLasked if that was after judicial rents had been fixed?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not know; but 19·8 years had been the average number of years' purchase in the case of holdings of the total value of about £188,000 dealt with by the Land Commissioners. He had now gone through all the points which had been raised, and he thought he had shown that the increase in the salaries and expenditure of the Land Commissioners could be thoroughly accounted

    809
    for even by those who might not agree with the decisions given by the different Courts and in the work done by the Commission. That work had been very considerable; and he must say that, in his opinion, a great deal of the expenditure had been not unworthily incurred.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, no one could overestimate the importance of the Vote which was now under discussion in the Committee; but it was obvious that on the 16th of August, and during the last few days of the Session indeed, it was absurd and ridiculous to attempt to discuss with anything like fairness a Vote of this magnitude and importance. One had only to glance at the Committee at the present moment to see that it was foolish to say that they were now discussing the great issue which had been raised in connection with Irish affairs. He ventured to think that it would be impossible at that moment to discuss properly this most important subject, raising such important issues. He would not say how many Members there were in the Committee at that moment. He would forbear from calling the attention of the Speaker to that matter in a more marked manner, as it might cause the prompt adjournment of the House; but he might indicate that there was a very limited and sparse attendance on the Benches of both sides of the House. Even on those Benches on which patience, perseverance, and patriotism were claimed to linger, there were only three Members to be found, all told. He made that remark, not in disparagement of hon. Members, but to show that the House was not in vigorous Session at the present moment, and that hon. Members could not be expected to take any active part in the discussion of the subject. His right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had had his attention drawn to this matter in the proceedings of the Land Commission for a considerable time; but, recognizing the logic of facts within the last 10 days, his right hon. Friend had given Notice that early next Session he would call in review the proceedings of the Commissioners, and subject them to the criticism of the House at a time when they could be independently and calmly discussed—when all the arguments on both sides could be fully reported and weighed and con-
    810
    sidered by the House and the country. He ventured to think that his right hon. Friend was right, and that it would be absurd for Jam, or for any other Member of the House, to expect that any proper criticism at this time could be formulated, weighed, or listened to in a way that could secure practical or proper consideration. The submission of this Vote for the Land Commission at this moment was to bring it forward at a period when debate was impossible and discussion was obviously out of place. That being the case, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant should himself have volunteered an attack upon the Lords' Committee.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had only done so in answer to the arguments which had been adduced.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that, no doubt, the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were made in answer to other speeches. However, it was quite evident that the answer had been formulated in order to make a deliberate attack upon the proceedings of the Lords' Committee. He ventured to say that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was far more intended and suited for dealing with criticism which might be urged next Session, and which had been already urged by the Press, than any attempt to give a reply to the precise question presented in the debate on the present occasion. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had used some language towards the Lords' Committee, and the witnesses summoned before that Committee, which, if it were reported to-morrow in the morning newspapers, would be found to go far beyond the limits of sound and calm criticism. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reference to the Lords' Committee, had made use of this extraordinary expression—"That they appeared to be indifferent to getting at the truth of the matter." He could not imagine that a graver charge could be made by a Minister—a responsible Minister—of the Crown against the Committee, who were discharging responsible duties with a conscientious desire to perform their duty under the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman also said in reference to the witnesses that they were "extraordinarily inferior." What was the meaning of that? The right hon. Gentleman was a master of English, and was a

    811
    man of considerable eminence in literature; but in this case the collocation of words was remarkable, and he questioned whether, in a calm literary effort, the right hon. Gentleman would repeat the phrase "extraordinarily inferior," which he had used in the House that night. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean when he said that the witnesses were "extraordinarily inferior?" The right hon. Gentleman did not venture to tell the Committee what he did mean, but he was referring to the Sub-Commissioners who were examined before the Lords' Committee; and if that was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman of the Sub-Commissioners, when they were examined before the Lords' Committee, he would like to know what opinion the right hon. Gentleman would expect hon. Members on that side of the House to have in regard to those Sub-Commissioners, many of whom had been appointed against their protest by the right hon. Gentleman's own Government? But the remarkable criticism of the right hon. Gentleman did not rest there. Having said that some of the witnesses were "extraordinarily inferior," he proceeded to say, with judicial calmness, that their evidence was "miserable." This was no paraphrase; he was saying the actual words of the right hon. Gentleman, and that was the way in which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant voluntered criticism at a time when criticism should be smoothed down, in order to let hon. Members get home to their families. Could anyone conceive, or imagine, observations more calculated to excite debate, and to lead to angry and contentious feeling? He (Mr. Gibson) would, however, forbear. He could not forget that this was the 16th of August. The Chief Secretary mentioned, in the course of his observations, only one name—the familiar name of Baldwin. Now, he was surprised that the Chief Secretary did not try to grapple with that evidence. He certainly did not praise it; he, unquestionably, rather appeared to condemn it; but he (Mr. Gibson) would pass from the right hon. Gentleman's description of the matter with this observation—that, from the beginning to the end of his speech, he forbore to criticize, to condemn, or to praise the evidence of the one solitary individual he named
    812
    as having, in fact, been examined before the Lords' Committee. He (Mr. Gibson) had never had the honour of seeing Professor Baldwin, and he had not the pleasure of his acquaintance; but he had heard very often about him, and he had read some of his productions, and some things connected with him. He was, therefore, prepared to believe that Professor Baldwin was a man of great experience, of great knowledge, and of considerable ability. He had read the evidence which Professor Baldwin had given on the present occasion, and he was, therefore, disposed to believe that Professor Baldwin was a man who would not speak lightly, and who, when he had given evidence, was entitled to have that evidence considered calmly, with intelligence, and with a desire to get at the truth. He was sorry that upon this occasion the Chief Secretary had gone into the constitution of the Lords' Committee. That was a wide question, it was an important question, requiring full consideration; and at this period of the Session, in the present state of the House, it was impossible that it could receive full and ample discussion. When the matter was brought before Parliament early next Session, he trusted that it would be considered fully and fearlessly; and he was satisfied that his right hon. Friend the Member for Westminister (Mr. W. H. Smith), who was in charge of the question, and who was a man of moderate views, and a man of great temperateness of expression, would present his opinions to the House in a way which, if they did not command consent, would, at all events, command a respectful hearing. He (Mr. Gibson) would, therefore, forbear from going further into the question until that time arrived. But he begged leave to say that if the Government had criticism to make in connection with the Lords' Committee they were themselves to blame. They deliberately refrained from appointing any person upon that Committee, or from taking any active part in the examination of the evidence before it; and, therefore, it was idle, and almost absurd, for them to presume to suggest criticism which mainly depended on their own abstension from the performance of their distinct public duties. The Memorandum issued by the Land Commission was an attempt to re-

    813
    ply to the Report of the Lords' Committee, and it had been rightly indicated by the right hon. Gentleman as being absolutely exceptional, and wholly unprecedented. For himself, he had no desire, in the slightest degree, to blame the Commissioners for having issued the Memorandum, which they considered necessary to place them rightly before the public in reference to the Performance of their public duties. He always endeavoured, as far as he could, to be fair to every person, and particularly to those who were charged with the administration of difficult and responsible duties. The objection he had to the introduction of this topic to-night was that it might possibly be alleged that the question had been discussed in consequence of the attack which the right hon. Gentleman referred to. Any such suggestion was quite out of place. The right hon. Gentleman had given a most meagre description of it; and he (Mr. Gibson) declined, at the fag end of the Session, in the presence of a limited number of Members, to discuss either the Memorandum of the Commissioners, or the Report of the Lords' Committee, reserving to himself the right of discussing them fully and completely hereafter. There was, however, one point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman which he must refer to. The Commissioners had made constant statements, both in that House and elsewhere, that the old rents in Ireland were not intended to be interfered with, and that under the Act of 1881 it was only exceptionally high rents that would be dealt with, and that the older properties upon which the rents had not been raised for many years would not be touched or interfered with. Notwithstanding those statements of non-interference with the old rents which had been paid for many long years, and even for generations, it was obvious that under their administration of the Land Act these rents had been constantly interfered with, and that some of the oldest standing rents on ancient properties in Ireland had been reduced just as much as the rack rents upon other properties. That was a broad charge, and he thought that the way in which the Commissioners met it would not carry assent with it when their arguments came to be weighed. The right hon. Gentleman, without going into the mat-
    814
    ter at all, suggested that the Commissioners had not been afraid to grapple with the question. No doubt, it might be said that they had not been afraid to express their feeling in regard to the charge; but he at once arraigned the way in which they had met it. It was a matter familiar to everyone acquainted with the administration of the Irish Land Act that upon property after property in some of the best-managed estates in Ireland, where the same rent had been paid for generations, and for more than a century, the old rents had been reduced, notwithstanding that all the Commissioners said that when the question came before them primâ facie, it must be assumed that these old rents were just, and ought not to be changed. When and where had they indicated to the Sub-Commissioners in Ireland that if old rents had been paid for generations and centuries, it was to be assumed that they were right rents and reasonable rents—rents that were not lightly to be reduced? He failed to see, and he had a tolerable acquaintance with the administration of the Irish Land Act, where that instruction to the Sub-Commissioners had been given; and he ventured to think that whenever the matter was discussed, that would be found to be a circumstance which must challenge criticism, and in regard to which he did not think it would be found that criticism was on the side of the Land Commissioners. He declined to enter into the question in any detail at the present moment. The charges made most frequently against the Land Commissioners, notwithstanding the Memorandum of excuses and vindication they had published in defence of the charges made against their conduct in the House and elsewhere, were mainly two—that they had allowed the administration of this Code to proceed without laying down a single principle to guide those who were to regulate and control its administration; and, secondly, that they had so managed the administration of appeals as to minimize the exercise of the rights of those who were dissatisfied with the decisions of the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman had passed by this point lightly. In fact, the only substantial part of his speech was an attempt to attack the Lords' Committee, and the evidence given before that Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had confined him-

    815
    self to attack rather than defence—a wise enough principle when what was to be defended was somewhat difficult. What the right hon. Gentleman had said in reference to the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act he wished that he (Mr. Gibson) himself could believe. The Purchase Clauses of the Land Act were, he was convinced, undoubtedly intended by the Government to have a bonâ fide reasonable and substantial operation; and when they modified the clauses of the Act of 1870, and the later Act of 1881, by giving further facilities to the tenants for the purchase of their holdings, he believed it was honestly intended by the Prime Minister and the Government that these new Purchase Clauses should have a wider operation than the old Purchase Clauses. He admitted that; but, as a matter of fact, as an incontrovertible fact which could not be denied, the Purchase Clauses had had, he would not say no operation, but a very trivial operation, and an operation absolutely incomparable with the operation of the Tenure Clauses of the Land Act of 1881. He wished he could believe what the right hon. Gentleman had described, in such roseate hues, as to the number of purchases of land in Ireland, and the price land was saleable at. He would be glad to think that in many parts of Ireland land was saleable, and saleable at the moderate figure of 20 years' purchase; but, unfortunately, that was not the rule, nor anything like the rule, for the land had become absolutely unsaleable, and it could only be sold at prices considerably under what they were before the Act passed. He should be glad to learn that he was wrong in this view; but, unfortunately, all the facts within his knowledge tended to convince him that he was right; and he believed the Committee would do him the justice to say that he had never taken pleasure in drawing gloomy conclusions with regard to the effect of the Act. There was a Bill before the House which awaited its Committee stage to-morrow, the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Bill, which did propose to amend the Purchase Clauses of the Act of 1881 to some extent, and which would give some further facilities for the purchase, and possibly some relief from the great evil of unsaleability of, land in Ireland. He
    816
    would prefer to look to that Bill becoming law for relief; and it might be that Her Majesty's Government would see their way to some Amendments which would give the measure a wider scope and a more beneficent operation. He was, however, not very sanguine of seeing any great extension of the Purchase Clauses as presented by the Government in this Bill; but he hoped when they discussed next Session the administration of the Land Act, it would be borne in mind by the House that this Session they had affirmed, on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), that it was desirable to give increased facilities for the purchase of land in Ireland by occupying tenants; and he trusted that an effort would be made to render the clauses in question what they were not now—a reality.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the Court of the Land Commission had now been working for something very close on two years, and it had been possible for the Government, and all parties interested in the success of the Land Act of 1881, to discern in what respect that Act had failed in carrying out the hopes of Parliament, and in what particulars it was reasonably open to amendment. Therefore, he regretted very much that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in his able statement, had not announced whether the Government had any intention with regard to the amendment of that Act, and that it did not touch upon points in which time and experience had proved it to be notoriously deficient. Neither did the right hon. Gentleman announce that the Government intended to introduce, in the next Session of Parliament, some measure dealing with those deficiencies of the Act; as, undoubtedly, as the days went by it became more and more abundantly evident that unless Parliament was warned by the experience of the past and legislated in time to remove the admitted deficiencies of the enactment, he believed they would have before many years passed another agitation, and a greater agitation, owing to the discontent caused by the rents which were now being fixed under the Land Act of 1881. Now, the right hon. Gentlemen, he thought, had proved, by the figures he gave to the committee, that

    817
    the Act, so far from remedying in a great majority of cases the admitted grievances of Irish tenants, had up to the present moment failed to do so; and that so far as those grievances needed remedy, they had been remedied most slightly and most inefficiently. The law in Ireland for oppressing the population and the great masses of the people had been administered quickly and sternly; but the Land Act of last Session, as plainly proved by the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, had been administered tardily, slowly, and inefficiently. The right hon. Gentleman had shown, after two years' working of this Act, that only 61,000 decisions had been given for the fixing of fair rents, and that only 47,000 settlements had been arrived at out of Court, and had been registered in Court as fixing the judicial rents—that was to say, out of a total of 500,000 tenants, who were subject to the operation of the Land Act, only a little over 100,000 cases, after working two years at high pressure, and with a staff which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate would be after a time reduced, only one out of five—and he was not now making a reduction for those tenants subject to leases, who were out of the operation of the Act—only one in five had been decided upon by the Land Commission; and that further, with respect to a very considerable proportion of those decisions, they had yet to go before the Court of Appeal constituted by the Act. The Act itself had hopelessly broken down, and all the parties to the litigation connected with the Act in Ireland would be obliged to look forward many years before they could hope to see the termination of that litigation. Now, what did that mean? It meant that while Parliament in 1881, two years ago, promised to every tenant coming under the provisions of the Act that a fair rent should be fixed, nearly four out of five of those tenants were still obliged to pay the old rack rents. He and his hon. Friends had recommended, in the course of debate that Session, that the law should be altered, so far at least as to fix the payment of the judicial rent from the date of application to the Court; or that, even if the tenant were compelled to pay the rent meanwhile, until the Court were able to reach the case or, in other words, for the next
    818
    10 years—and, according to the rate at which decisions had been given up to the present moment, it would take 10 years until the 500,000 cases in Ireland would be settled—that at least the good faith of Parliament should be demonstrated to the Irish tenants by making it clear that, when this fair rent had once been fixed, if it were proved that the tenant had been paying more than a fair rent, he should receive back the amount paid in excess. Little or no notice had been taken of that proposal; but when they looked at the fact that, according to the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman that night, and according to the Returns of the Land Commissioners, in nine cases out of ten—and he believed in a larger proportion—the Judges, who had been appoined by Parliament to decide what the fair rent should be, had decided that the tenant was paying more than a fair rent, he said they had a claim at least for this partial act of justice from the House of Commons to the tenants supposed to be benefited by the Land Act of 1881. Let them look at the cost of those 61,000 contested cases—cases which had actually come into Court and been decided upon by the Land Commission after the tenant had been obliged to pay his valuer to make a valuation and survey of his farm—after the landlord had paid his valuer for doing the same thing, and incurred a similar expense for solicitors who had to be feed far beyond the scale allowed by the Commissioners, and in some cases for counsel engaged in the proceedings. He certainly thought the Government ought carefully to look into this question of the delay in working out the provisions of the Land Act, and the vast cost which it had entailed on all parties to the suits, a cost, according to the best judges and most careful estimates, considerably in excess of the amount of reductions allowed up to the present moment by the Land Courts after two years' working. Had the one simple provision suggested by Irish Members been adopted with regard to the date of fixing judical rents, they knew well that it would have operated to quicken, in a most extraordinary manner, the settlements out of Court which the right hon. Gentleman, on several occasions, had alluded to as being the only hope of the Act ever being brought into satisfactory opera-

    819
    tion. It was, he said, a monstrous injustice that the tenants, owing to the imperfections of the Act, should be compelled to pay the old rents, and be practically placed outside and debarred from the protection which Parliament was supposed to have given them. It was useless to expect that the Irish people would believe that Parliament had done as much justice as it could for them, when the old state of things, as had been proved by the 61,000 decisions requiring tenants to pay rack rents, and in many cases exhorbitant rack rents, was allowed still to exist under the operation of the Act. He had also hoped for some statement from the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the failure of the Court to carry out the section of the Act of 1881 dealing with the subject of leases. Everyone recollected the discussions which took place on that section, when certain provisions were adopted by the Government which it was hoped by the Government would result in the annulling of a considerable number of leases, and in the bringing of the tenants under the Act. According to the Report of the Commissioners those sections had completely broken down; out of several thousand applications by tenants to annul leases the Land Court had only been able to entertain a very few hundreds. He had not the figures at hand; but he believed only in one case out of ten had the sections of the Act with regard to the breaking of leases proved operative. Certainly he thought, with regard to this point, it would be well for the Government to consider whether something could not be done early next Session in respect of the working of those clauses—a provision made which would give some amount of protection, and some measure of justice, to the important class of leaseholders in Ireland constituting, as they did, the best portion of the Irish tenantry, who found themselves partially shut out from the benefits of the Act of 1881. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had alluded to the paragraph contained in the Report of the Commissioners regarding the question of test cases. He quite agreed with the hon. Member that the Land Commissioners had signally justified the action of Irish Members in the autumn of 1881, shortly before the suppression of the Land League and the summary arrests which took place of several hun-
    820
    dreds of persons during that winter in Ireland. He had never had an opportunity of referring to this matter before; first, because he was not in a position to take part in the discussions which occurred immediately after the arrests; secondly, because the matter had not presented itself prominently before the hon. Member brought it up in his speech; and, further, on the principle of letting bygones be bygones, he should not have alluded to the matter now had it not been brought up by the Commissioners themselves in their Report. But he wished to explain what they intended to adopt in reference to this matter of test cases. They intended to have chosen from any estates of a certain size in Ireland a certain number of cases which, from the circumstances of the holdings, would have been recognized by the tenants on each of those estates as test cases, and as a standard of what the Land Commissioners were likely to do in their cases if they went into Court. They would have materially lightened the labours of the Land Commission, and it would have had a most important effect in bringing about settlements out of Court. What had happened, however, was just the reverse. In many cases the tenants of whole estates had gone into Court; whereas, if half-a-dozen test cases had been selected, it would not have been necessary for the tenants to go to the expense of feeing their solicitors, and incurring the other preliminary outlays necessary to be made before their cases could go into Court. It would have been possible on such estates for the tenants, if judiciously advised, to have selected, say, half-a-dozen or a dozen cases which would have served as models and examples of what the Commissioners would be likely to do in the other cases; and if that course could have been pursued, he firmly believed that, in all probability, instead of having only 110,000 cases settled after two years' working of the Land Act throughout the whole of Ireland, at least 50 per cent of the tenants would have had their judicial rents fixed, and that the decisions of the Courts would have been far more satisfactory than they had proved to be. However that might have been, it was no use to go back to these things; and he repeated that he should never have alluded to the subject at all had it not

    821
    been, first, for the paragraph contained in the Report of the Commissioners, to which the hon. Member for Newcastle had referred; and, secondly, but for the speech which the hon. Member had made that evening. The Land Question was so far from being settled that there was in the morning papers a report of a meeting of delegates from three of the richest and most important counties in Ireland—speaking from an agricultural point of view—Limerick, Tipperary, and Clare. At that meeting 500 delegates assembled from different parts of those counties; resolutions were passed denouncing the judicial rents which had been fixed in those districts as being rack rents, and pointing out that the clauses of the Act giving the tenant the benefit of his improvements in fixing the rent were being habitually disregarded, and that rents were being fixed in every case on the tenant's improvements. It would be well if the Government were to look to these things in Ireland, and to legislate in time before reproach was cast upon them, in truth and justice through the action of the Land Commission, that they had not seen that this Irish Land Question was a pressing question till it was forced upon them by the necessities of the position, or by the violence, if they preferred the term, of the agitation in Ireland, and by the impossibility of collecting the old rack rents which had been demanded of the tenants.
    CAPTAIN ALYMERsaid, he thought the course which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had adopted towards the Committee of the House of Lords was most unprecedented, and deserved a very strong protest indeed. The right hon. Gentleman had gone out of his way, on a discussion of a Motion for the reduction of this Vote, to make a strong personal attack upon the Lords' Committee. Amongst other things, the right hon. Gentleman said that the reduction in rents was only 20 per cent, instead of 35 or 40 per cent as stated by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton); but there, he thought, the right hon. Gentleman was in error. If the right hon. Gentleman took the cases in which I reductions were made, he would find they amounted to at least 25 per cent; but even if the Report of the Committee was not correct, it went far to show that
    822
    the Land Act of 1881 had entirely failed. He agreed with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), but from another point of view, that that Act had hopelessly broken down; and he also agreed with him that the sooner the Government turned their attention to the re-modelling of the Act the better. The tardiness with which the decisions were given, the number of appeals that could not possibly be heard for years, the difficulties which the Commissioners themselves had put in the way of anyone getting an early trial—all these things were accumulating day by day, and it was necessary that something should be devised that would provide a way out of the difficulty that existed.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he had not the advantage of hearing the speech of the Chief Secretary; but he understood the right hon. Gentleman had not denied the allegations made by a number of speakers. Many gentlemen were examined before the Lords' Committee, and one of those gentlemen, whose opinion was valued most highly upon all agricultural questions, was Professor Baldwin. Surely the Committee would not treat Professor Baldwin as an inferior person.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not remember that he used the epithet the hon. Member had put into his mouth; but, certainly, the word "inferior" would not apply to Professor Baldwin.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had corrected himself; and he thought the Committee would be glad to find the Chief Secretary did not include Professor Baldwin in the category of inferior persons. He did not wish to go into detail; but Professor Baldwin had given evidence upon a point which should be brought up on a Vote of this kind, that point being the arrangement of the Circuits. He had not the evidence of Professor Baldwin with him, and therefore he was unable to refer the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the exact place in which the evidence on this point appeared; but he remembered that Professor Baldwin distinctly stated, in his evidence before the Lords' Committee, that he had found himself three times in the same place, entirely owing to the mis-arrangement of the Circuits by the officials in Dublin. The Circuits were arranged very badly, and this was the

    823
    cause, in a great measure, of the delay which occurred. The Secretary to the Commissioners, or the Chief Commissioners themselves, arranged the Circuits. They put down the cases to be heard, and in nearly every instance they put down twice as many cases as were actually heard. The result was that all the tenants whose cases were listed attended the Court; but at least half of them had to go away, without having their eases decided upon. They were greatly disappointed; but what was worse still, they had to continue paying rack rents until such time as the Commissioners could fix their judicial rents. The time they lost in waiting in the Court was very considerable; and at this time of the year, when agricultural operations required most attention, their time was very valuable to them. The remedy for this state of things which Professor Baldwin suggested was that the Sub-Commissioners should be entrusted with the duty of arranging the Circuits and fixing the sittings of the Courts, and that they should also be able to decide upon the number of cases which should be listed for hearing, with the view of preventing an undue number of cases being placed on the list, with the result that a great number of tenants were obliged to attend the Court when there was not the slightest chance of their cases being reached. Allusion was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) to what he called the indiscriminate levelling down of rents, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman added that no distinction whatever was made between the estates on which low rents were paid and those on which high rents were exacted. He (Mr. Kenny) failed to call to mind—and he was acquainted with a great many estates—any of those very old proprietors upon whose estates the rents were exceedingly low; and he failed to call to mind any of those old proprietors whose tenants had unhesitatingly and without murmer paid their rents for a great number of years. As a matter of fact, a great many of the tenants had been forced to pay their rents simply because they had no tribunal to rearrange their rents, so that the old proprietors deserved very little credit for the so-called consideration they had extended to their tenants. He found that,
    824
    in a great many instances, old proprietors had been quite as exacting in regard to their rents as the new proprietors. He admitted that, as a body, the new proprietors were more conspicuous for their rack renting than the old proprietors were. At the same time, he did not think there was any reasonable ground for the complaint that the old proprietors had been more harshly treated than the new proprietors. He knew that the barristers and solicitors who appeared before a certain County Court Judge took good care to mention the class of landlord whoso cases were in Court; because the Judge in question had the reputation of viewing with particular favour and leniency the cases of the class of old proprietors, to which he himself belonged, while he had a decided antipathy to the new proprietors. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had alluded to the tardiness with which appeal cases were heard. He (Mr. Kenny) was not surprised that great tardiness was displayed by the Chief Commissioners in hearing appeals. At the present time there were between 9,000 and 10,000 appeal cases waiting for hearing; and he thought he was correct in saying that at the rate of progress which the Chief Commissioners were making these cases would not be disposed of until six or seven years from now. One of the causes of this delay arose from a recent decision of the Chief Commissioners. The Chief Commissioners had placed a very extraordinary construction upon one of the clauses of the Land Act, a construction which arose probably from their interpretation of a clause of the Arrears Act which was enacted 12 months after the Land Act, and which was supposed to affect the 47th clause of the Land Act. The 47th clause of the Land Act provided that the three Commissioners should hear appeals; but when, from sickness or other cause, one Commissioner was unable to attend the Court, the other two Chief Commissioners could hear appeals, one of whom should be a Judicial Commissioner. Now, the 22nd clause of the Arrears Act provided for the appointment of an additional Chief Commissioner, whose name was specified in the clause. There was a further provision in this clause that in any case where it was competent for the three Commis-

    825
    sioners to hear appeals before the passing of the Arrears Act it should also be competent for three Chief Commissioners to hear the same cases after the passing of the Arrears Act; the Arrears Act, therefore, really made no change in the powers of the Chief Commissioners to hear appeal cases, or in alteration of the numbers beyond that specified in the Land Act of 1881. The Chief Commissioners had only recently decided that it was a matter of grave doubt whether two Chief Commissioners ought to hear appeal cases sitting by themselves. Now, he (Mr. Kenny) failed to see—and if the Attorney General for Ireland were present he would put the case plainly before him—that the 22nd clause of the Arrears Act in any way interfered with the operation of the 47th clause of the Land Act; in fact, he considered a great wrong was inflicted on the tenantry of Ireland when it was declared by the Chief Commissioners that it was improper for two of their number to hear appeals. Now, what would be the consequence of that declaration? It would be that it would be necessary for three Commissioners at least to attend appeal cases throughout the Provinces. There were four Chief Commissioners; but there was no attempt to deny that the fourth Commissioner never went outside of Dublin; as a matter of fact, he believed Lord Monck's state of health would not permit of his travelling; and, therefore, he had not been outside of Dublin on the business of the Land Commission. He did not offer any objection to the appointment of Lord Monck; he believed the noble Lord was competent to sit in the Chief Commissioners' Court in Dublin; but he did object to its being placed in the power of any one of the Chief Commissioners, by either deciding to go on his holidays, or by sickness, to prevent appeals being heard, and to compel the postponement of the Court of Appeal in any places where the Chief Commissioners might have decided upon hearing appeals. At the present moment one of the Chief Commissioners was on his holidays, and when he came back one of the others would take his holidays; and the result would be that while this constant ringing of the changes by the Chief Commissioners was going on, the hearing of appeals would be very greatly delayed. He considered it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to call the
    826
    attention of the Chief Commissioners to the very extraordinary decision they had arrived at in regard to the hearing of appeals. It must be remembered that while in Ireland there now stood for hearing 9,000 or 10,000 appeal cases, and the delay of hearing the cases continued, the landlords continued to demand the old rents; and where they succeeded in getting, as they did in a great many instances, the old rack rents, it was a shame for the Government not to interfere and to recommend to the Chief Commissioners the desirability of their re-consideration of the very extraordinary interpretation they had placed upon the Act of Parliament, an interpretation which was entirely contrary to common sense. He thought that any reasonable man would come to the conclusion with him that the interpretation of the 47th clause of the Land Act and the 22nd clause of the Arrears Act was not only unfair and unjust, but it was calculated to beget a feeling of resentment and discontent in Ireland, which was not an advantageous feeling at the present time. The Land Act of itself had been a complete failure; it had failed to satisfy the requirements of either landlord or tenant; so that these extraordinary and fantastical constructions of the Act by the Chief Commissioners ought to be avoided as much as possible. If he found that the Chief Secretary did not turn his attention to this matter he would, next Session, bring the matter forward in the shape of a Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, whose opinions on subjects of this kind were very valuable, and who, he was confident, would not approve of the decision of the Chief Commissioners in this instance. He impressed upon Her Majesty's Government the desirability of their facilitating the hearing of appeals, which would tend to cause landlords and tenants to come to terms, and thus stop that litigation which was distracting the country, and resulting in loss to the people.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he had discussed the Land Act with a good many farmers, and they could not deny that the principles of the Act were very good and sound, and that they were an invaluable boon to the tenantry of Ireland if they could only be put in operation. He did not wish to undervalue for one moment the difficulties the Go-

    827
    vernment had at the time they passed the Act. Possibly, they were not able to do more at the time; but what he wished to impress upon them now was the absolute necessity of bringing in, not later than next year, an Act to amend the Act in its relation to leases. It was strictly unfair that a judicial rent should not operate from the date the application to the Court was made. If the Government would bring in an Act next year to amend the Land Act of 1881, so that the rent fixed should be a judicial rent from the date of the application, they would do more to prevent discontent than they could do by any other single measure. As an impartial observer, his firm conviction was that until something was done to amend the Act in the directions he had indicated, the Land Act would not be a complete success.
    MR. BARRYsaid, he had not had the advantage of hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and, therefore, he was not aware whether the right hon. Gentleman had given any undertaking to amend the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act. In the earlier part of the discussion he listened with pleasure to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen). He agreed with that speech, except in the part where the hon. Gentleman found fault with the Sub-Commissioners for the feeble results of the Purchase Clauses. There was very little fault to be found with the Sub-Commissioners on that head. The fault really laid in the very defective machinery provided by the Act. When the Land Bill was in Committee he submitted an Amendment with the view of increasing the amount of the purchase money, and extending the time for the repayment from 35 years to 52 years; but the Government would not accept it. He then ventured to predict that within one or two years there would be an utter break down of the Purchase Clauses as they stood in the Act; and he thought that by the facts which had been submitted to the Committee that night his prediction had been amply verified. His object in rising now was to impress on the Government the necessity of devoting their attention to an amendment of the Purchase Clauses, because, without amendment, they would simply be a dead letter.
    828
    Anybody who was anxious for a final settlement of the Irish Land Question must see that the Purchase Clauses would be a large element in contributing to that settlement. He trusted that during the Recess the Government would give their attention to this subject, and that early next Session they would do something which would increase the scope of the Purchase Clauses.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that the figures which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had presented to the Committee were very fallacious. The right hon. Gentleman showed them that the number of cases decided by the Land Commission had increased very largely of late, and he expressed the hope that they would very soon get rid of the arrears of work in the Land Courts. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there was a great acceleration of work in the summer months, because the landlords were anxious in those months to co-operate with the tenants and the Sub-Commissioners in getting rid of the work. The landlords desired to have the holdings examined when they looked pleasant and in good condition. He did not wish to dwell upon that fact at any length; but it was well cognizance should be taken of it. Naturally, it was the object of the landlords to retard the settlement of cases as much as possible; and during the winter months especially they did everything in their power to stay the progress of the work of the Sub-Commissioners. He was sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland resume his seat without giving the Committee some assurance that he would endeavour to use his influence with the Sub-Commissioners, who, upon the clearest testimony of his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), and upon other unimpeachable testimony, repeatedly visited holdings in company with the landlords and the landlords' agents. That was a state of facts which the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone else who was anxious that the people of Ireland should have confidence in the Land Act, should endeavour to use his influence to put an end to as soon as possible. The people of Ireland were particularly jealous in matters of this kind; and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that

    829
    his countrymen would have no confidence in the decisions of any Commissioners who visited the holdings in the company of the landlord or the agent. At present this practice on the part of the Sub-Commissioners was doing a great deal to break down the confidence of the people in the Land Act.
    MR. O'KELLYwished to emphasize the point which had just been raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. Harrington). He had occasion that day to call attention to a case occurring in the county of Leitrim, the Sub-Commissioners availing themselves of the use of the carriages of a landlord, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was obliged to admit the facts. Perhaps, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, the fact that the Sub-Commissioners were driven from farm to farm by a landlord might not influence them to any great extent in the decisions they gave; but that was not his (Mr. O'Kelly's) opinion, or the opinion of the people of the country. It would be impossible to convince the mass of the Irish tenants that a man who was hand and dove with a landlord and his agents would do justice when he came to try a case brought before him. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had been, he thought, a little severe on the Sub-Commissioners with reference to the failure of the Purchase Clauses. He (Mr. O'Kelly) did not think the failure of the Purchase Clauses was to be ascribed to the conduct of the Sub-Commissioners, nor did he quite agree with some of his hon. Friends as to the cause of the failure of those clauses. The failure would always continue until a radical reform had taken place, and the people were resolved not to purchase their own improvements. Under the law as it stood at present, if a farmer desired to buy his farm he would not only be obliged to buy the landlord's interest in the farm, but also the improvements which he himself had made. Until that blot, which was one of the greatest blots on the Land Act, had been removed by the re-introduction of the "Healy Clause," there would never be any large operation of the Purchase Clauses. He hoped the Government would address themselves to that aspect of the question, for, in his view, that was the main point of the whole discussion.
    MR. DALYsaid, the Prime Minister expressed the opinion, when the Land Act was passing through the Committee, that a great many cases would be decided out of Court; but the mere fact of the judicial rent not dating from the time the originating notice was taken out, a landlord had a direct interest in not coming to terms with his tenant. He knew a large landlord to whom the tenant gave notice that he was going to have a judicial rent fixed. The landlord came to him and said—"Let us not go into Court, but you appoint a valuer, and I will appoint another, and then we will decide upon an umpire." If the Chief Secretary desired it, he would supply him with all the data. As a matter of fact, the tenant, who was a hardworking and industrious man in the estimation of his landlord, had been for years and years living by what was termed in Ireland "the skin of his teeth," for he had paid a rental of £72 a-year. When his case came to be arbitrated upon the rent was reduced to £46, and the landlord accepted it. That was a case that at once illustrated the injustice in the initiation of the Land Act of not permitting fair rents to date from the time the originating notice was taken out. The tenant in question was on the verge of insolvency, and by the re-arrangement he had just been saved from such a position. As the Land Act now stood a premium was given to the landlord to withhold, as far as possible, justice to his tenants. While recognizing that the Land Act had conferred a great benefit upon Ireland, he believed that a great mistake was made in its initiation by not making the fair rents date from the time the tenant gave in his notice that he would require a judicial rent fixed.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £781,345, 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 1884, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he merely wished to say that he intended to take a Division against this Vote. The Irish Members had placed their position in regard to this Vote so fully before the House on former occasions that he did not intend

    831
    to go over again the ground which they had traversed on those occasions. Suffice it to say that as long as the Government, if not in the letter, in the spirit, violated the Mutiny Act by employing soldiers as policemen, there would always be found a body of Irish Members, increasing from year to year, to protest against the Vote.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, the Vote was alluded to at Question-time to-day, and the reason queries relating to it were put upon the Paper was because during the last few days some Returns bearing upon the Constabulary, moved for by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), were laid on the Table, and were now in manuscript, not having yet been published. These Returns were very extraordinary. The Committee might not be aware of the manner in which charges were made for extra constabulary in Ireland. There was a rule that when the Lord Lieutenant thought extra constables were necessary he ordered him into the county, to be paid for by the particular district, if it was a particular district for which they were required, and if not to be paid for by the whole of the county. He would not cite cases in which particular districts had had to pay for these constables, as it would be unnecessary for his argument. He would merely take cases in which the country at large had to pay. From the Return produced at the request of the hon. Member for Queen's County they found that the present Estimate was not an Estimate to keep up the force at its full strength, but a much less sum—an additional charge being made for extra men. As a matter of fact, before they had their full complement they began charging the county with extra men. This was not, perhaps, a national grievance; but still it was a matter of which he had a right to complain. If anyone else but the Government did such a thing some very hard words might be applied to the transaction—it might, for instance, be called swindling. He had desired to have some words introduced into the Police Bill to prevent the Government from charging in this way under the Peace Preservation Act—that was to say, to prevent them charging for extra police until the full complement was made up. The Committee on that occasion was inclined to support
    832
    him; but a statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman the then Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster) which induced him to withdraw his proposal. The right hon. Gentleman's statement was that the charge would not be made for extra police unless in the case of casualties by illness, death, or retirement. That was the right hon. Gentleman's statement as reported in Hansard, and he had heard several speeches to the same effect. Surely the term "casualties" would not include the case of a man who was relieved from active duty for a day or two; and yet the Return to which he had alluded showed that the casualties in many instances amounted to 8 or 9 per cent of the force. In the ordinary course of events, casualties would be filled up in a short space of time, the men being charged for a week or two, and the percentage, at the outside, would not amount to more than 1 or 2. He was aware that the law was as stated by the late Attorney General; and here he would point out that a rather curious thing had happened during the passage of the Coercion Act. In the Bill, as originally drawn, there was no restriction; but in Committee it was proposed to amend the measure to the effect he had stated. On Report another Amendment was introduced, dealing with death, illness, or leave of absence. It might be said, why did he not protest against this at the time? But the fact was, that a large proportion of the Irish Members were silent, no longer being able to take part in the debates—a large number of them had retired. He remained in the House with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and they had endeavoured to amend the Bill as well as they could. The Chairman, on four or five occasions, when Divisions were challenged, told them to stand up; they did so, and sometimes there were three or four, sometimes six or seven, the result being that they could not go to a Division. The hon. Member for Cavan was in his place, and he, no doubt, would support this statement. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] After one or two additional struggles to amend the Bill, they were obliged to give way—it was useless to protest. On Report an Amendment was introduced which did not for a moment bear out the promise of the late Attorney General in Committee, as anybody who read

    833
    Hansard's Debates would see, for the effect of introducing amongst the casualties leave of absence enabled the authorities to swell up these casualties to any extent they chose. He (Colonel Nolan) maintained that it was utterly unjust to allow that state of things to exist. They knew from the Returns that the list of casualties was very unfairly worked up, and that counties had to pay more than they ought. The Irish Members would have to demand Returns showing the leave of absence of every constable when he had obtained it, and why, seeing that while he had it the county had in each case to pay from £40 to £50 a-year. The Irish Members were placed in an awkward position, and would be obliged to insist upon this Return. He would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to look very carefully into this matter of leave of absence, and to show, as nearly as possible, the casualties by death and sickness; because he maintained that it was most unfair to charge such a county as Galway, for instance, with 8 or 9 per cent of casualties. He would not go into the question of particular districts; but, at the same time, he must say he thought it exceedingly unfair that the whole county should be charged in a future case with these extra police. Such a charge did a great deal of harm. County cess was swelled by this charge to 4s. or 5s. in the pound; people were swindled in this way; and, such being the case, it was the bounden duty of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to give them some promise that he would look into it, and see that the charge for casualties, when they exceeded an ordinary sum, were reduced.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be able to give them an assurance that they in the counties would not be compelled to pay for men who existed merely on paper. The counties were charged with a number of men who rendered no service whatever. It was most dishonest to make such a charge, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give it his attention and endeavour to put an end to the system.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he most certainly would look into the question. He thought that when they considered the
    834
    circumstances of any disciplined and organized force they had to take into view all the defects and drawbacks which existed amongst human beings. One county was accredited with 280 men; but from that number the services of men who were ill, or absent from any cause, had to be deducted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) had called his attention to the casualties in the district with which he was connected (Galway); and certainly; looking to the manner in which it compared with other counties, the matter was one which required inquiring into. Before next Session he would see that the lines of the Act were followed, and that they imposed no greater burden upon the counties than they were absolutely obliged to do by law. He understood that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) intended to take a Division upon the Vote, in order to make a protest against the Constabulary Force in Ireland; and, if that were so, he hoped the Committee would allow it to be taken at once.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman would look into this matter he would find that the late Attorney General had used the expression that the casualties which occurred would be filled up in a week or two. If the right hon. Gentleman would see that that statement was adhered to, the casualties might be reduced by a large percentage.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that as he had twice given way at the request of the Government in regard to the Wexford riot, to which he had wished to draw the attention of the House, hon. Members would excuse him if he took this opportunity of going into the matter. Yesterday the subject was being inquired into, and it was going on also to-day. The conduct of the police in their attack upon the people whilst waiting outside the office of the Mayor of Wexford for the result of the poll at the recent Wexford Election, was not under investigation, the police having prosecuted the people to screen their own conduct. He was in the midst of the riot, and the police were nothing more or less than a mob with rifles in their hands—a mob of men who were no more fit to be trusted with rifles than were a lot of lunatics. But he would give a short statement of what had occurred. He would preface his observations with this

    835
    —that the Resident Magistrate who was in charge of the town appeared to have acted with the greatest good sense and with the greatest discretion, as far as he was concerned, throughout. He (Mr. Healy) had no fault to find with that official; but he had the strongest condemnation to pronounce upon the subordinate under his control, who had acted with the greatest barbarity, and passion, and want of caution—in fact, his want of caution was such as no words could adequately describe. He was referring to a man who, on several occasions already, had been in conflict with the people—namely, Sub-Inspector Cameron. At Youghal, some years ago, he very nearly brought about a similar riot. He distinguished himself also while stationed at Gort, in County Galway. In the latter place, in consequence of a dispute as to a right of way, in which some Catholic nuns were concerned, and in which his conduct was not all that it ought to have been, he was obliged after a short time to leave the place. He was removed to Galway, and the present Archbishop, Dr. McEvilly, complained of his conduct in placing spies in church to attend the administrations of the Catholic religion, and to take notes of the sermons delivered from the pulpit. Owing to the representations of the Archbishop, Sub-Inspector Cameron was removed from Galway. This, then, was the man who was sent down to Wexford. He (Mr. Healy) must say, knowing the town of Wexford well, that had the former Sub-Inspector been in charge on the occasion of the election not the smallest bloodshed or riot would have occurred. The former Sub-Inspector was a man who knew the people thoroughly well—who knew their quiet, peaceful, qualities. The town was one in which not a single "suspect" had been arrested under the Coercion Act—it was also situated in one of the most peaceful and prosperous counties in the whole of Ireland. From one year's end to another there was scarcely any contest between the people and Her Majesty's Government. The Sub-Inspector to whom he referred was removed, he was grieved to say, and this Sub-Inspector Cameron sent down in his place. Were this man in the position of an ordinary sub-constable he would have been dismissed long ago, because not only was his general character bad,
    836
    but his moral character was of the very worst kind. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members seemed to take exception to that statement; but he was prepared to substantiate the remark he made. His statement was that if Sub-Inspector Cameron had been an ordinary sub-constable he would have been dismissed from the Force long ago, because there was a most inhuman Rule in force amongst the Royal Irish Constabulary, than which nothing had ever been heard of more calculated to shock the feelings of right-thinking people. He would be obliged to read the Code to the Committee. It was one of the Rules of the Royal Irish Constabulary which, no doubt, the Chief Secretary would defend, although probably he would do so reluctantly—
    "Code 848—Morality. No man can be allowed to marry a woman with whom he has had criminal intercourse; and should it he found even in the case where a man has married with leave such intercourse has taken place between him and his wife previous to marriage, such person shall he dismissed."
    That was the Code under which the Royal Irish Constabulary was worked; and the Government had chosen this Sub-Inspector for the purpose of making him an exception out of the whole body of the Constabulary. The Code had not been put in force in the case of this Sub-Inspector, possibly because he had insulted the nuns at Gort, and had been driven from Galway at the instance of the Archbishop. If the Chief Secretary required any further particulars with regard to the moral character of Sub-Inspector Cameron, he (Mr. Healy) would be glad to give them to him. He would venture to say that Sub-Inspector Cameron could not contradict a single word he had stated. The Code he had quoted was a disgraceful one. It was shameful to the Constabulary, and to those gentlemen who framed it; but when it was in force it was certainly very unjust that it should only be put in force against sub-constables, and should not be put in force against a Sub-Inspector, who had insulted nuns, and had been driven from towns by Archbishops. Well, to come to the so-called riot at Wexford. The people were standing quietly in front of the Mayor's office at 5 o'clock waiting for the result of the poll. It was provided by the Ballot Act that the poll should be declared publicly;

    837
    therefore, the people were waiting in their Constitutional right for the declaration of the poll. He (Mr. Healy) was passing through the town at the time, and saw about 40 policemen, with rifles in their hands, driving through the crowd with The O'Conor Don in their midst. Their function was to conduct The O'Conor Don to the Mayor's office. There was no reason in the world why they should have gone through the crowd; but through some mistake on the part of the Sub-Inspector, he supposed, they did so—they went right through the crowd. Some hooting took place, no doubt, but no more than he had heard at many elections in English towns. He (Mr. Healy) had requested the people to cease hooting; but the crowd of policemen having seen The O'Conor Don safely into the Mayor's office turned back, and whilst he (Mr. Healy) was endeavouring to obtain order, before a single rude word had been spoken to the police, and certainly before a single blow had been struck, or a stone thrown, the Constabulary commenced hustling the people, and shoving them with their bâtons and the muzzles of their rifles. He (Mr. Healy) had only been saved by a local sergeant from being seriously crushed. Indeed, a person who was with him had had his leg badly injured. Almost in a shorter time than it took him to tell the story, the whole crowd was being attacked by the police. Having seen The O'Conor Don into the office of the Mayor, instead of returning quietly whence they came, as they might have done, the police sallied forth amongst the people, and began to bully and strike them. Sub-Inspector Cameron, without waiting for orders from his superior, the Resident Magistrate, drew his sword, and without reading the Riot Act, and without a word of warning, gave the order for the men to charge. He (Mr. Healy) quite admitted that when the police commenced, to use a Cockneyism, "chevying" the people, the mob commenced to retaliate. When they found themselves in the grip of the police, they began to throw stones, and there was a general mêlée; but the origination of the riot was not with the people. He would read the words of a reporter, a Scotchman, who had written him a letter on this subject—the reporter of a Dublin daily paper. Every one of the papers except The Dublin Express,
    838
    which gave the police account of it—even if they took The Irish Times, which was a Conservative paper—was practically against the police. This reporter did not wish him to give his name; but he (Mr. Healy) had already had the honour of showing this letter to the Chief Secretary, but, he was sorry to say, without having obtained satisfaction. Well, this reporter said—
    "Late on Tuesday night I was passing through the bar-room of the Ship Hotel in Wexford, when I saw the Head Constable and three or four of his men there. They had drinks round"—
    and this was a Constabulary offence—
    "at the expense, seemingly, of the Head Constable. As these men were on duty with their rifles, I think it worth mentioning to you, as showing the state of discipline amongst the men, who had a few hours before committed such a murderous and unprovoked attack upon the people."
    This Scotch Tory reporter was in the midst of the mob, and he referred to the police attack as "murderous and unprovoked." Nothing was more unpalatable to Irish Members than to have to meet Gentlemen like the Chief Secretary, who took all their instructions from the Irish Police, and who regarded the words of Irish Members like himself as of no account against the words of a policeman. It was a very humiliating thing to be brought into contact with an Official like the Chief Secretary when one's word or credit was concerned. The Chief Secretary was found, in his official capacity, to believe the word of his Sub-Inspectors, or his policemen, against the word of any Irish Representative in that House. He felt so strongly as to this Wexford riot, that he had considered it his duty, as the late Representative of these unfortunate people who were bludgeoned on this occasion, to lay the facts before the right hon. Gentleman. He had done so, and he regretted to say be had not received the slightest satisfaction beyond this—he had asked the right hon. Gentleman for an inquiry, and the right hon. Gentleman had told him that there would be one before the magistrates. The magistrates were, of course, the right hon. Gentleman's own creatures. He trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would take note of this—that simply because the Mayor of the town, who was

    839
    presiding on the Bench, desired to ask a question of one of the witnesses, he was told by one of the right hon. Gentleman's paid officials, Mr. Macmahon, a Crown solicitor, that his conduct was indecent. Now, he (Mr. Healy) would put it to any English Member, what would be thought in an English town, if some paid official of the Crown, who drew his salary from the taxpayers, ventured to tell the Mayor—say the Mayor of Birmingham, as he saw the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in his place—supposing that official was told by the head of the Watch Committee that his conduct in venturing to ask a question of a witness was indecent, how long would such an official hold his place? And yet the Chief Secretary would hear the conduct of his officials so described, and if he could not defend it, he would gloss it over, because it was the practice of Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench, when they heard charges against their officials, not to take notice of them; but when they heard a lot of the merest fribble-frabble on the other side, to take it up and make much of it. He should like to hear the right hon. Gentleman on that point. What was the fact? Why, the fact was that the police prosecuted in Wexford every person they had bludgeoned or stabbed. They found them prosecuting every man who could give evidence against them. When the unfortunate people brought an action against the police, the magistrates dismissed them; and in order to prevent witnesses from being called to give evidence against the police, there were included in a common indictment all people who had been witnesses of the barbarity of the police. In the same way, at a town in County Clare, everyone who witnessed the action of the constables was arrested; and it was the same again at Ballyragget, where men who were getting up evidence in regard to a certain case were put in gaol. Nothing like an impartial inquiry was made by the Chief Secretary, and that was what he complained of. He would be content if the right hon. Gentleman would take the evidence of the reporters of the three Tory anti-popular Dublin papers—The Dublin Evening Mail, The Dublin Express, and The Irish Times. If the Chief Secretary would take that, and hold an inquiry, he would be con-
    840
    tent to abide by the result; but the right hon. Gentleman had no intention of doing anything of the kind. But when an English riot took place, an opposite course was pursued; there was the amplest inquiry and investigation. But when they who represented the people of Ireland brought forward these cases, they found that the word of the humblest policeman was preferred to theirs by the Chief Secretary. If he said the constables were murderers, he might be accused of bias and prejudice; but in this case the reporter of The Dublin Evening Mail described the conduct of the police as murderous, and yet he could get no satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman. The town of Wexford was one of the quietest towns in Ireland, and there was not a single "suspect" arrested there during the "Buckshot" reign of terror. In the whole county there were, practically, no outrages; and it was, in fact, one of the most prosperous and peaceable counties in Ireland. He supposed the next thing would be that these unfortunate men would be summarily dealt with, or be sent forward for trial. If the latter course was adopted, what would happen? When the Winter Assizes came on, and bail cases were brought forward, the Crown would make terms with these men, and tell them that if they pleaded guilty they would let them out on their own recognizances; and so they would get the men to plead guilty, and yet not bring them to trial. That was what occurred in the town of Miltown Malbay. Wexford, which was previously a quiet town, would now have remembrances of the conduct of the police, which was justified by the Irish Executive, and the people would realize that they might have their heads broken, and their bodies stabbed, but would get no reparation or compensation.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he wished to call attention to a similar case of which he was a witness. In July, last year, he attended a meeting at a town in Kerry, and when the people were assembled, the Resident Magistrate rushed into the middle of the crowd, which was perfectly peaceable and orderly, accompanied by about 18 policemen, and without any previous intimation whatever called upon the people to separate. This was before the Prevention of Crime Act was passed, and the magistrate had not the extraordinary power which he now

    841
    wielded, and at that time his interference with a meeting which was perfectly orderly was grossly illegal. He was at the moment addressing the meeting, and when this occurred he left the window from which he had been speaking and asked the Resident Magistrate why he interfered, and what was his objection to the meeting being held? The reply of the Magistrate was that he would not be catechized by him. He then asked whether the objection was to the meeting being held in the street, as, if that was so, he would remove it to another place? The Magistrate said he had better remove the meeting, and he called upon the people to leave the town. They did so, and re-assembled in a field, and when the meeting was again going on, Captain Massey, followed by a body of drunken policemen, with rifles in their hands, rushed from the town, and without a word broke in upon the meeting and beat the people with their bâtons. And not only that, but two of the policemen drew their revolvers, and fired into the crowd, though fortunately without hitting anyone. [A laugh.] The reason was that the men were too drunk to find their marks. They went to remove him from the place where he had been addressing the meeting; but he refused to leave until they brought the superior officer to tell him by what right he had interfered with the meeting. The officer, however, refused to come, and they arrested him (Mr. Harrington), and took him to a common lock-up, where they kept him all the night. In the morning they found themselves in a disagreeable fix, for they did not know what charge to make. After reflection, they charged him with riot; and when the charge came to be tried, what did the Executive Government in Ireland do? They refused to have the charge tried by the local magistrates in the district, and brought into the county—when the Prevention of Crime Act was not in force—two Resident Magistrates, who had never been in the county before, and who were entirely unknown to the magistrates there; and the result was that when they went on the first day to take their seats, the local magistrates refused to sit with them, The inquiry proceeded for some days, and at the close those two magistrates, who had gone there to save the police and the Resident Magistrate, alone returned the case for trial, and re-
    842
    turned him for trial with others. At the conclusion of the inquiry he challenged the magistrates to bring him or any of the persons to trial, and stated that the disclosures as to the conduct of the police would be so disgraceful that they would not attempt to have the case tried before a Superior Court. The case was to have been heard at the Tralee Assizes, but it was struck out. The object of the Officers of the Crown in doing that was to screen the police, who had acted illegally. The police were so intoxicated on that occasion that they actually beat the officers who were in charge of the soldiers. It was proved that they pursued the officers and beat them with their bâtons. When an Irish policeman made a statement it was accepted by the Chief Secretary as unquestionable; but the Government in that way fell into a great many mistakes. Some time ago he asked a Question respecting the interference by a policeman with a constituent of his in Westmeath, and what was the answer he received? He would repeat the answer, to show how these men were screened, and how the conduct of the police was justified by the Chief Secretary. On the 10th of May he asked if the Chief Secretary's attention had been called to a paragraph in The Westmeath Examiner, which stated that a head-constable had made his way into the house of a man named Gibney, and questioned him as to his knowledge of the murder of Mrs. Smythe; that although they said they did not suspect him they told him they were aware that he knew all about the murder; and on his saying he knew nothing about it they called him a ruffian and a puppy, and said the day would come when he would be glad to give information, but would not then get the opportunity? The reply of the Chief Secretary was that he had seen the paragraph, and had made inquires, and he found that the statement was garbled and strained, and that the allegations against the police were without foundation. He asked if the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiry of the man who had made the statement? There were two sides to every question; but the right hon. Gentleman refused to hold any communication with the man who had made the allegation against the police. Desiring to have correct information upon the occurrence, he had ob-

    843
    tained a sworn affidavit from the man who had made the allegation, and this he would read. It was as follows:—
    "Petty Sessions District of Collinstown, County of Westmeath. I. James Gibney, of Kilpatrick, do solemnly and sincerely declare, That I am a farmer living at Kilpatrick, that on the 1st day of May, 1883, I was at my house, and two constables—namely, Constables Lynch and Tilson, came to my door and asked for me. I went out, and Constable Lynch said to me that I should have known all about the murder of Mrs. Smythe, when he himself knew it. I made reply that I knew nothing at all about it, and then Constable Tilson, who was standing by at the time, said to me, with his clenched fist to my face, that I was a ruffian and a puppy, and that the day would come when I would strive to tell it, and would not be let to do so like the rest of them. Then when they were leaving, Constable Lynch made reply, saying, 'that I can tell you that you spent your day with the murderer.'"
    Appended to that declaration was a note for the parish priest, saying he had never known a more sober, honest, and peaceable young man than Gibney; and yet, in the face of these facts, the Chief Secretary refused to make any further inquiry. He took it, as a matter of course, that the police were never wrong. A policeman could bludgeon people in Ireland; and when he made a statement it was treated as perfectly infallible. It happened that, time after time, the information which Irish Members elicited in reference to these things, was information which everyone in the district knew to be absolutely incorrect.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that with regard to the main substance of the speech of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), it was plain that the Committee would not expect him to say anything, and he rather thought the hon. Member himself did not expect him to say anything. In substance, the hon. Member's speech was an inquiry into the nature of the occurrences at Wexford; but at this very moment those occurrences were the subject of judicial inquiry; and whatever view the hon. Member might take of the House of Commons as a platform for discussing matters of this kind, which were now before a Court of Law, it was clear that he himself could not make that use of his position in this House. This matter was now before the Court of Inquiry, which was the only Court of Inquiry that could come to a right decision upon it. The hon. Member had said he had had a private interview with
    844
    him, and regretted having spoken out on that occasion, because he did not regard the word of Irish Members. To begin with, the hon. Member had no reason to regret having spoken, because every word he said was at a private interview, and was regarded by him as private and no harm was done by his having given his view of this matter. But it was not for him to compare the impression of these events on the mind of the hon. Member with the impression on the police. It was not for him to question whether or not he could take the opinion of the reporters of the three Conservative papers. It was clear that in a matter in which grave charges were brought forward on either side—the charges by the hon. Member amounting almost to intended murder by the police, and, on the other side, charges of almost murderous rioting by certain citizens of Wexford—reporters were not a proper tribunal. The only tribunals that could try such charges were the tribunals of the country; and, although the hon. Member might have his own suspicions of those tribunals, it was absolutely impossible for him to substitute any other body for them. Therefore, he would not enter into the question of the Wexford riot, except to say that the reports he had received did not at all bear out the view taken by the hon. Member of that occurrence; but he was quite aware that the discrepancies between the hon Member and those who had reported to the Executive were the sort of discrepancies which naturally occurred between the observations of people who took a very different view of the case. But it was absolutely impossible for him to pass over, without notice, one or two observations of a personal nature made by the hon. Member. When very strong things were said in that House he very much doubted whether the proper answer to them was strength of language in proportion to that which had been used on the other side. There were certain things so grave that it was absolutely impossible to use language strong enough to express one's feelings about what had been said, without at the same time violating the dignity of that House, while producing no good effect; and, therefore, the language he should use would be of the most moderate description. The officer who was in charge of the military at

    845
    Wexford was Sub-Inspector Cameron. That officer took with him a force which he supposed it was his duty to take, and his conduct was at this moment practically before a Judicial Tribunal; but the bon. Member had made certain charges respecting that officer's antecedents, and on that point he was absolutely bound to say, taking the question of the Wexford riot apart, that the Government were perfectly satisfied that Sub-Inspector Cameron was a zealous and a judicious and an honourable officer. The hon. Member made two charges against him—one relating to a difference he had with the Bishop, into which he would not enter now, for it was a very long story, and it would take the House a very long time to go into it. When it was examined, that case was a very small matter really; but he must remind the hon. Member that it was very possible—though he did not think that in this case Cameron was rude to the Bishop—to say very rude things to a very great Bishop and, at the same time, preserve the confidence of the people. The hon. Member said Sub-Inspector Cameron came down with brutal force, and behaved in a very arbitrary manner to some ladies who were members of a religious body. In 1871 the Rev. Mr. Shannon complained of Sub-Inspector Cameron for having arbitrarily interfered in a dispute as to a right of way between a Dr. Melville and some nuns. The nuns claimed the right to pass over a yard belonging to Dr. Melville, and they broke down a barrier. Sub-Inspector Cameron and some of his men took their station near the place of dispute, with the object of being in the locality; and while they were there a mounted orderly brought to Sub-Inspector Cameron a message from the Resident Magistrate. The charge which the Rev. Mr. Shannon made against the Sub-Inspector was that he and one of his men went into the passage in dispute for the purpose of intimidating the nuns. This matter was investigated by an officer, and the result was that Sub-Inspector Cameron was completely exonerated as having done nothing more than his duty. That decision did not satisfy the Rev. Mr. Shannon, and he, in strong terms, demanded a further investigation; but the Government saw no reason for complying with that decision. [Mr. HEALY: Was the inquiry
    846
    public?] The inquiry was not public; but the charge was a very light one; and if in 18 years there were only two charges of about this gravity brought against an officer, he thought his antecedents might be said to be very clear. But he could not pass by so lightly another observation of the hon. Member. He could not imagine what idea the hon. Member had of his position in the House of Commons, and of the privileges of Parliament; but this was what had happened. The hon. Member had repeated a statement from which everybody could draw only one conclusion. He brought a horrible charge against Mrs. Cameron, stating that she had lived with her husband before they were married. That was the gist of what the hon. Member said. He had heard nothing of this matter, and he had no reason to suppose it was true; but, even if it was true, he contended that it ought never to have been stated in that House. He did not think that in regard to such charges against men and against women—and he drew no distinction between the two, because he thought that a man's honour and sensitive feelings in these things were just as much to be respected as a woman's—the House of Commons ought to be made a place for references of this kind, unless such references were absolutely necessary in order to obtain a right judgment on public affairs. He thought the hon. Member should consider what an awful precedent he was setting. It would be bad enough if the House took to raking up all sorts of stories, true or in part true, about Members of the House; but what a terrible thing it would be if they took to raking up stories about people who had not seats in that House! They would make the Public Service so intolerable that they would not be able to get men to serve their country, except such men as were indifferent as to their character. He felt certain that in making these charges the hon. Member had not reflected on the great possibilities for evil of which he was setting an example. He did not think it necessary to comment further upon the matter.
    MR. HEALYsaid, his point with regard to Sub-Inspector Cameron was that, because of the favour with which he was treated by superior officers, conduct was overlooked in him which in the meanest

    847
    petty officer would be visited with dismissal. Here was this brutal and shameful Rule 848 existing. Whose shame was it that that Rule existed? What did it exist for? To be put in force, or not to be put in force? The Chief Secretary was responsible for it, and here in his place he defended it. The Rule was either to be put in force, or it was not. If there were Sub-Inspectors in Ireland unduly favoured, that must be because they had shown themselves venomous and malignant opponents of the popular Party in the country; and yet Irish Members were to be condemned for having exposed the conduct of Sub-Inspector Cameron; and, after he had attempted to smash the heads and stab the hearts of the people, they were expected to have great tenderness and respect for him. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had not seen, as he had seen in Wexford, the blood of his best friends staining the ground for simply exercising their civil functions. But the character of Sub-Inspector Cameron, who ruled the constituency and had control over the lives and happiness of the broad-winners in Wexford, was everything to the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Healy) wanted to know whether this Code was in operation or not? If it were, let it be put in force against Sub-Inspector Cameron. He maintained that on account of his antagonism to the popular Party this man had been placed in a position of responsibility that he had no business to occupy, and that his fault had been overlooked; and be asked how long he was to remain in charge of a mob of armed men ready at any time to make an onslaught upon the people with rifles and fixed bayonets? From the expressions which reached his ears when these things were being told, he verily believed that when anything of this kind happened in Ireland it gave satisfaction to every Englishman in that House. There was no pity for the unfortunate men who got bread and water and the plank-bed in prison; but for Sub-Inspector Cameron, the pure and noble officer, there was the greatest sympathy shown when his character was ripped up in that House. The right hon. Gentleman had heard of the stings which wounded honour felt being healed by certain things; this was a good opportunity to promote the officer in ques-
    848
    tion, say, to the office of Chief Spy at Dublin Castle.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, be could understand the position taken up by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if this was an isolated case of attack, and was the subject of inquiry before a Court. But the Wexford incident was but the general outcome of the conduct of the police, who, whenever they had an opportunity of attacking the people, pursued exactly the same course; and in this, as far his experience went, they were always sustained by the Government. They could never get anything like an independent inquiry into the conduct of the police; when an appeal was made in that House for justice they were always told that the matter was sub judice. But before whom? The Government selected men who were part of the Force to which the accused person belonged, men who were moved by esprit de corps; and these held a sort of inquiry into the conduct of the individual, the result of which was communicated to the Government, who came to a decision upon the matter, and they know well what those decisions usually were. A case of this kind had occurred within his own experience in Ulster, where the police, under a Sub-Inspector, attacked and broke up a peaceable meeting at which there was not even the beginning of a riot—not a stone was thrown, nor a blow struck. Hearing a good deal of the possibility of obtaining justice in this matter, be proceeded against the Sub-Inspector civilly; he knew it was of no use to proceed criminally, because the futility of the remedy had been proved in that House. What was the conduct of the Government on the occasion? Instead of allowing the question to be tried fairly as a civil action between man and man, they threw the whole weight of their influence on the side of the defendant; employed Mr. Anderson, Crown Solicitor of Dublin, and practically instituted a Crown prosecution against himself. He believed at one time that he was in danger of being arrested for high treason for having brought, or rather tried to bring, this man to justice—in fact, counts of high treason were alleged against him by the Government. The Judges deliberately postponed their decision in this action at law until a decision had been arrived at in the English Courts in

    849
    the case of the Salvation Army, who claimed the protection of the police in their right to hold public meetings, which protection had boon refused by the police; but the matter having come before the Courts, the right to demand protection was affirmed. What was the action of the Irish Courts? Before the judgment of the English Court could be registered, which would have otherwise been a guide to them, they immediately assembled in all haste, and decided against the very right which two or three days before had been affirmed by the English Court. Therefore, he said, they had no remedy, either criminal or civil, against the police. When they brought the police before a Criminal Court the Government packed the jury; and if they appealed to a Civil Court they did practically the same thing, and something more—they threw the whole weight of their influence upon the side of the defence. For these reasons he felt it his duty to oppose the Vote as a protest against the conduct of the Government.
    MR. BULWERremarked, that, some years ago, Lord Palmerston had congratulated the House of Commons upon being "an Assemblage of Gentlemen;" but their experience of the last few weeks had cast some doubt how far that assertion was applicable to the present time. He ventured to offer, on behalf of Members of the House, a most earnest and indignant protest against the language they had been listening to that night. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had considered it decent, and consistent with his position as a Member of the House of Commons, to hold up to reprobation in that House the private character of a public servant in his absence, and without Notice, knowing that the language he used, although privileged there, would go throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, including that portion of it which he misrepresented.
    MR. HARRINGTONrose to a point of Order. He wished to know whether it was in Order for one hon. Member to say that another hon. Member misrepresented his country?
    MR. BULWERsaid, as the hon. Member objected to that term, he would say that portion also which he "represented." But, after all, what did the accusation made against this man amount
    850
    to, even if it were true? Simply to this—that, having wronged a woman, he had afterwards made her the only reparation in his power by making her an honest woman. As against the man it was no very serious accusation, but as affecting the woman it was abominable. But this it was which the hon. Member thought fit to bring before an Assembly of Gentlemen, and to hold up to the reprobation not only of that House, but of the whole of Ireland. He (Mr. Bulwer) had been in hope that even stronger language would have come from the Treasury Bench than that which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had made use of, condemning the course taken by the hon. Member. He would like to know whether the hon. Member told the Committee this story on his own knowledge, or was he making the statement upon what some malignant fellow had told him? But, supposing the statement was true, what business had the hon. Member to bring it forward, affecting, as it did, the character of a married woman, in an Assembly of Gentlemen, when he knew there was no one present to defend the individual of whom he made it? [Mr. HEALY: Are you a friend of the Code?] Whether he was in favour of the Code or not had nothing to do with the statement made by the hon. Gentleman with regard to Sub-Inspector Cameron and his wife, which was a cowardly and uncalled-for attack.
    MR. BARRYsaid, it was the invariable rule of the Government officials in that House, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Attorney General for Ireland, to ignore the statements of Irish Members upon affairs in Ireland, and to accept unreservedly the statements of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Police. Now, with regard to Sub-Inspector Cameron. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), whose veracity had never been impugned either in or out of that House, had described the action of the police at Wexford as unprovoked and brutal, and constituting a murderous outrage upon the people; he had backed up his statement with the testimony of three independent witnesses, who could not be suspected of leaning, in the slightest degree, to the side of the people; and yet the only answer which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-

    851
    land gave was that the case was sub judice. The right hon. Gentleman placed no value at all on the statement of the hon. Member for Monaghan, and he was prepared to receive the testimony of an Irish constable. The right hon. Gentleman, in his conscience, knew that there was no chance of the truth of this matter being brought out before the Tribunal to which the case had been submitted; he knew the character of that Tribunal, and he knew that the character of Sub-Inspector Cameron would be screened by it; and yet, in the face of that knowledge, he did not hesitate to question the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Barry) knew Wexford well, and he had seen 30,000 people gathered in that town during the most excited period of the Land League agitation; and he could say that he had never witnessed there the slightest approach to a breach of the peace, or heard a rude word spoken. On the occasion he was referring to he had gone round the town with an English gentleman at 9 o'clock in the evening, and that gentleman, speaking of the orderly conduct of the people, said he could "hardly believe the evidence of his senses." It was extraordinary that during the Land League agitation there had never occurred in Wexford the slightest conflict between the police and the people; but on the first occasion when Sub-Inspector Cameron was in charge of the police the town became the scene of bloodshed. For his own part, he was certain that the Government would screen the conduct of this person. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant must expect that when unjustifiable attacks were made on the people by the police, the former would turn round upon those who attacked them. He was glad they had done so at Wexford; and, in view of the hopelessness of getting satisfaction from the Government as to what was done, his advice to the people was that whenever an unjustifiable attack was made upon them, to snatch the weapons out of the hands of the Constabulary and crack their heads with them.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 20: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 294.)
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) £88,689, to complete the sum for Prisons, Ireland.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to a new Rule made by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the powers conferred by the Act of 1877. In that Act it was provided that a clear distinction should be made between the treatment of prisoners awaiting trial, and not convicted of any crime, and those who had been convicted of crime; and special directions were given by the Lord Lieutenant to the Prison Board in Ireland to draw up Rules for the purpose of carrying out the spirit of that section of the Act to which he was referring. He believed Rules were drawn up under that section by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and by the Prison Board in Ireland, giving certain privileges or guarantees to untried prisoners. Amongst these privileges and rights to the prisoner was that of receiving visits, one visit a-day from a relative, in the presence, of course, of a prison warder. Several other privileges were given; but a few months, he thought two months ago, the Prisons Board in Ireland took upon themselves, evidently by direction of the Lord Lieutenant, to make a new Rule which practically abrogated the rights and privileges conferred upon untried prisoners, and which practically repealed a section of the Act in question. Under this new Rule the prison authorities were, practically speaking, able to prevent a prisoner from availing himself of any of the privileges which the Act of 1877 granted. The new Rule had been more especially used in the direction of denying visits to prisoners awaiting trial. It had constantly happened that certain prisoners awaiting trial in Ireland had been kept to solitary confinement for months and months together. He wished to direct the attention particularly of the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to this matter, because that right hon. Gentleman was distinguished for his desire, during the passing of the present Act, to ensure by Statute that there should be a distinction between tried and untried prisoners, and that there should be those privileges, of

    853
    which untried prisoners had been deprived by the Lord Lieutenant, beyond yea and nay, and as part of the law of the land. The terms of that most extraordinary special Rule, made by the Prisons Board on the 7th of May, 1883, and approved by the Lord Lieutenant on the same day, provided that the Visiting Committee or the Governor might suspend or withdraw permission granted by the section in any case when they or he considered it necessary to do so for the purposes of the security, good order, and government of the prison and prisoners therein, or to prevent the tampering with evidence, or to thwart plans of escape. He denied that the Visiting Committee had power to withdraw the provisions of the Statute of 1877 from untried prisoners; and he denied that it was contemplated by the Statute, which fenced the powers of the Governor round with safeguards and checks, that the Governor should have power, by his own motion, to suspend any one of these Rules for the vague considerations and pretences specified in the clauses. The real reason why this Rule was granted was not for the purpose of the security of the good order of the prison and prisoners therein, or to prevent the tampering with evidence, or to thwart plans of escape, but for the purpose of enabling the most infamous system of mouchardism, which had ever disgraced any Administration in Ireland, to be carried on. The Government were successful, to a certain extent, or rather they supposed they were successful, by the violation of the Statute of 1877, in detecting the Phænix Park assassins; but he maintained that if they had expected, even in a ten-fold degree, by the violation of the Act of Parliament, to have brought about the conviction of these prisoners, they would not have been justified in breaking the law, and of setting a bad example to the people. Least of all were they justified in proceeding, in the wholesale manner in which they had proceeded, in depriving the prisoners of the privileges extended to them by the last Parliament after full consideration—privileges and guarantees which were granted with the full consent of both political Parties, including the then Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross). The Government had not shown the slightest reason, pretext, or excuse for their conduct. He was waiting
    854
    with curiosity to hear what defence could be set up for the Lord Lieutenant. That question of the treatment of untried prisoners was one which the Irish Members would closely watch. He knew well how easy it was to convert the imprisonment of prisoners awaiting trial into a system of slow torture. That was what was being done at the present time. Men were being driven out of their minds and converted into lunatics under the system adopted by the Government. It was horrible to think that at the present time men were being slowly driven mad by the system of solitary confinement which was pursued, and the postponement of men's trials from one Assize to another. If the Government thought themselves justified in claiming that the violation of the law helped them to bring about the conviction of the Phœnix Park assassins, they had certainly failed in all the conspiracy cases which had followed the Phœnix Park murders. The Mayo, the King's County cases, had broken down, and the Government were simply detaining persons in prison, under the infamous system he had described, for the purpose of fishing for evidence which they could not legitimately obtain.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, as on many other important occasions of the Executive, the reason which permitted this particular action was very simple. It was very often the case that when a very strong measure had to be taken the defence of that measure was also strong, and, being strong, was easy to state. In January of this year the Irish Government found itself face to face with a position which he supposed was quite unprecedented in these Islands. The City of Dublin for 12 months before had been at the mercy of an invisible gang of murderers. On that subject there was no difference of opinion in any way. Whether the men who were executed were the murderers some people doubted, or professed to doubt; but that there was a powerful gang of murderers who dominated the streets of Dublin there could be no doubt. During the first few months of last year there were in Dublin—in the comparatively small population of Dublin—four homicides, three of which were most undoubtedly known at the time to be connected with secret societies, and the fourth of which was then suspected, and had since been ascertained, to have been so con-

    855
    nected. A society so strongly organized, and that required such terrible punishment to keep it in order, was quite certain to attempt dreadful things, and at the same time it was known to exercise such terrorism in all quarters that the detection of individual members of it was rendered next to impossible. At length, by a series of contingencies, to which he now need not further refer, but the most important of which, perhaps, was a murderous assault upon Mr. Field, and the almost chance identification of one of the persons engaged in that assault, the Government were able to lay their hands upon that gang. But when the members of the gang were arrested and were put in prison, one thing was quite certain—that with the fact of their being incarcerated the terrorism did not cease. Witnesses and people who had the means of being witnesses would not dare to give evidence with such terrible examples before them of men being shot and stabbed in Dublin in the early months of last year for being supposed to have given evidence. The Government had evidence in its hands before then that members, or that one member, at any rate, of that very gang, while in prison for a minor offence had conveyed to another member a letter directing the murder of a particular person. Both the persons to whom he referred had been convicted of connection with the Phœnix Park murders. Besides that, the Government were actuated by this knowledge—the knowledge of the certainty that if these desperate villians were able to communicate with persons outside they would contrive to terrify all those private citizens of. Dublin who were willing to give evidence against them, and if they did not succeed in terrifying them would get them assassinated. It was no libel to say all this when they recollected what happened—namely, that a private citizen, whose only fault was that he came, under compulsion, to serve as a juror, and being a juror gave the verdict which his conscience obliged him to give, was attacked by men whose intention was to murder him, and was only saved by his own remarkable presence of mind and an extraordinarily exceptional strength of constitution. If the Government did not know whether or not they had got the whole gang they strongly suspected that several were still at large, and they
    856
    thought it absolutely necessary to prevent communication between the prisoners and the outside—first of all, for the purpose of securing the honest evidence which would come forward if there was no terrorism; and, secondly, for the still more important purpose of securing the lives of citizens outside the prison. Under these circumstances, the Government took the very strong step of suspending the permission to receive visitors. The law was not perfectly clear upon the point—that he admitted. Following the advice of several persons much more competent than himself, with whom he had conferred on the subject, he was inclined to think that the Statute bore the construction they put upon it; but he would allow that it was only in the interests of public safety, in a most exceptional state of things, that they would have been justified in altering the Rule. Accordingly, when there seemed to be some prospect of some alteration of the Rule being required he advised the Lord Lieutenant, and the noble Earl readily agreed with him, that they should at once proceed to secure the safety of witnesses, and alter the Rule, and lay it openly upon the Table of the House, securing Parliamentary and Statutory sanction to the course they felt it their duty to take. He was perfectly aware of the interest which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) took in matters relating to prisoners, both tried and untried, and that he insisted upon the due performance by the State of its duties towards these people. Any ordinary warmth, in fact even greater warmth than the hon. Member had shown, he should not be unwilling to excuse, if he might use the word—nay, he might also say he should be inclined to feel a certain sympathy with; but there were some words which the hon. Member had used which he could not allow to pass unnoticed. The hon. Member, referring to the policy of the Government in regard to the Prison Rules, had spoken of that "most infamous system of mouchardism which had ever occurred." Well he (Mr. Trevelyan) did not believe there was a single Member in the House who, whatever he thought of the methods by which it was done, believed that any one of the men who was excuted for the Phœnix Park murders was not guilty. The system which was adopted of bringing these

    857
    murderers to justice was perfectly allowable. In the face of day every man of those who was tried had the evidence of independent citizens to corroborate the evidence of informers to convict him; and he (Mr. Trevelyan) utterly denied that the Government, with regard to these trials, had done anything that it need be ashamed of. He did not hesitate to say that in the exceptional state of things of a society like "The Invincibles" being rampant in the City, the Government had acted perfectly legitimately.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that in his remarks he had referred to what had been going on, and what was still going on, in every gaol in Ireland where prisoners were awaiting trial.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he knew what view the hon. Member, and those who acted with him, took as to the system under which crime had been detected in Ireland; but he repudiated the epithets the hon. Member had used, and contended that the course the Government had adopted was perfectly justified. One of the methods they had adopted in the prosecution of their efforts to detect crime was that of preventing prisoners, under exceptional circumstances, from seeing and communicating with people from outside. He perfectly agreed that it was right, in a matter of this kind, that the action of the Executive should be closely watched; but he did not hesitate to say that in the exceptional state of things which had existed, and which had never occurred before in Ireland, of a society like "The Invincibles" being rampant in the country—a society he did not hestitate to say worse than that secret society, which had existed in Pennsylvania—the Government had a perfectly legitimate right to take every care that the terrorism should not be continued after the prisoners were in custody.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman actually defended himself and the Irish Government for having made a Rule on the 7th of May, 1883, on the ground that the Rule was necessary in January in order to detect the Phœnix Park assassins, who were actually executed before the Rule was made at all. He really must ask the right hon. Gentleman to examine this question seriously. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman reminded him
    858
    very much of the action of a horse dealer of whom he once heard, who, when he was asked how old the horse he was endeavouring to sell was, and whether he would allow the would be purchaser to look at its mouth, brought that purchaser round and showed him what a splendid tail the animal had. The right hon. Gentleman showed them how well the Rule was adapted to the discovery of the Phœnix Park assassins, when the assassins were detected without the Rule at all. There were examples of prisoners awaiting trial in cases which the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned, all of them being deprived of the privileges granted to them under the Act of 1877. The law-said—
    "Whereas it is expedient that a clear difference should he made between the treatment of prisoners unconvicted of crime, and in law presumably innocent, during the period of their detention in prison for safe custody only, and the treatment of persons convicted of crime."
    According to this there were to be special Rules regulating the confinement of persons unconvicted of crime, so as to make the law as little as possible oppressive. The Act said—
    "Therefore be it enacted that the Secretary of State shall make, and may from time to time repeal, alter, or add special Rules with respect to the communication between a prisoner, his solicitor, and friends, so as to secure to such prisoner as unrestricted a private communication between him, his solicitor, or friends, as may he possible, having regard only to the necessity of preventing any tampering with evidence, and any plans for escape, or other like considerations."
    It was the Rules made under the provision of that section that the right hon. Gentleman allowed any Governor of an Irish prison to abrogate and disregard. The right hon. Gentleman admitted his (Mr. Parnell's) whole case. There was nothing in the Statute referring to the detection of crime; and, therefore, this was a new system introduced by the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Spencer. The privilege given to untried prisoners had been struck off from the list of Rules, and he (Mr. Parnell) and the Irish Members were bound to protest against it. The right hon. Gentleman said the Rules were necessary for the detection of the Phœnix Park assassins. Well, was it still necessary to keep the present Rules in existence for the purpose of these or any other crimes in

    859
    Ireland? If not, it was to be hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to announce that he would at once consult with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland as to the advisability of repealing this most objectionable system.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that anything more farcical than the visits these unfortunate untried prisoners got now could not be imagined. If the Committee would imagine a door, perforated something like the outer door of the House leading into the Lobby, with a grating in front of it with the view going through a little box two feet long, with a warder at each end of it, the grating being so close that they could hardly pass a needle through it, they would have some idea of the aperture through which an untried prisoner communicated with his friends. As he had said, there was a warder waiting at each end for every word that was said. A prisoner could not see the person with whom he was conversing, or if he could see anything all that could meet his gaze would be the tip of his friend's nose, and it required the greatest effort to make oneself heard; they had to screech through two squares of metal grating. He was astonished that even an Irish Secretary should display such an amount of ignorance upon a subject of this kind as had been exhibited by the right hon. Gentleman. How an unfortunate man could be supposed to transfer plans and materials of conspiracy through a grating, into which they could not insert a needle, with two warders watching his actions, was more than he could imagine. The right hon. Gentleman might have been told that this sort of thing was the case; but he ought to know perfectly well that such statements were only for the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman knew, in his own mind, that it was very easy to deceive hon. Members like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge; but he should not attempt to make "the worse appear the better reason," and muddle people of sense; he could not fool the Irish Members in this matter; he could deceive hon. Gentlemen behind him, but not the Irish Members. He was quite sure that the whole subject of prison visits was a difficult one, and that there were abuses in many cases. He had seen prisoners visited by a class of per-
    860
    sons who should scarcely be allowed to visit them; but it was one thing to keep out such a class of persons as those, and quite another to refuse to allow the prisoners to be visited by their fathers, their mothers, their wives, or their children. This was a matter which really placed the prisoners at the mercy of the Governor. The Rule ought not to be of general application; it should not apply to the presence of members of the prisoner's own family. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not contend that a man's wife or his little children were parties to these dreadful murders. It was one thing to make the Rule applicable to outside parties, and quite another to use it in this way. The Mayo prisoners had been put into gaol, and papers addressed to them which contained certain facts had had those facts cut out. Who did that, he would ask, and why was it done? Did the right hon. Gentleman defend it, or say it was necessary for the prevention of crime? He wanted an answer to that question from the right hon. Gentleman. A paper sent to those prisoners, and simply containing a letter from one of them in self-defence, was prevented from reaching the other prisoners. Had the right hon. Gentleman any explanation of that fact to offer?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, in reference to that question he had no information whatever. He had no control over the prison authorities. [Mr. HEALY: Who has?] As to the legality of what had taken place he could express no opinion. The authority and the responsibility rested with the Governor of the prison, under Rules which he administered under the superintendence of the Prisons Board. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) supposed the Governor had a warrant for what he did, and acted under authority. Beyond that he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had no knowledge whatever of the matter. With regard to the suggestion made as to the treatment of the prisoners and the visits of persons from outside, he would say that the prisoners had always been allowed to hold unrestricted communication with their legal advisers at all times.
    MR. HEALY: It was absolutely stopped for some days. They would allow no one to visit.
    MR. PARNELL: Under this Rule has the Governor power, of his own option, to keep people out?
    MR. O'KELLY: IS there anybody over the Prisons Board?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): I am not aware of the circumstances of the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Monaghan.
    MR. HEALY: Of course not.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, it was impossible for him to keep up the discussion if he was to be continually interrupted. His right hon. Friend had already stated that what had been done under the new Rule would have been perfectly legal under the Rule as it stood before; and the point of this would be clearly seen if a comparison of the two Rules was made. However, it had been thought right to put the matter at rest, and therefore the new Rule had been provided to prevent any appearance of the straining of the law. The restriction of the Rule should not be applied except in cases of absolute necessity. It was only applicable in very exceptional cases, and for reasons which were very strong indeed, and anything done under these Rules must be within the provisions of the Act of Parliament; and one of those provisions, which had been referred to by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), was with respect to communications between the prisoner and his solicitor, under which regard was only to be had in imposing restrictions to the necessity of preventing any tampering with letters, or plans of escape, &c.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, this was a case in which his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) could confidently call for the support of the Committee generally, upon all sides of the House, against the action of the Irish authorities, and if there was one Member who ought to be called upon more than any other it was the Home Secretary. He (Mr. O'Connor) always found himself in a very great difficulty when he rose to criticize the action of the Administration in Ireland, because the Chief Secretary for Ireland always got up, and—no doubt, unintentionally—confused in the mind of the House two very distinct issues. It was one thing to uphold, or to defend, or to
    862
    exonerate, crime, and it was quite another thing to criticize the administration of an Executive in regard to their action towards persons who were accused or suspected of crime; and the Irish Members were just as much in their right in criticizing the action of the Executive, even in dealing with atrocious crime, as Englishmen would be in criticizing the action of Russia in dealing with the case even of the Nihilists. Not one word had ever escaped from him in that House, or elsewhere, in palliation or extenuation of crime; but no horror at the crime would permit him to keep silence in that House when he thought the Executive were employing means which were against the Statute Law of the land, and against the manners and customs of civilized nations. His charge against the Government was—first, that they had broken the law; and, secondly, that they had employed, and were employing, a system with regard to persons accused of crime which amounted to what was practically torture. With regard to the charge of breaking the law, he would read to the Committee again—he was sorry to have to trouble them with it, but this was really a most important and serious matter—he would read the distinct language of the Act of Parliament which the late Home Secretary got passed through this House with the sanction of every Party—
    "Whereas it is expedient that a clear difference should he made between the treatment of persons unconvicted of crime, and in law presumably innocent, during the period of their detention in prison for safe custody only, and the treatment of persons convicted of crime,"
    and so on. As he had said before in discussing this section of the Act, here was an extraordinary instance of what was practically the Preamble to an Act of Parliament introduced and wedged in in the 39th clause; and, therefore, he had a right to argue that the distinctness of this difference of treatment was laid down in the most solemn manner—in a manner the solemnity of which had no precedent in any other Act. What did the Act go on to say?—
    "Therefore be it enacted that the Secretary of State shall make, and, when made, may from time to time repeal, alter, or add special Rules with respect to communications between a prisoner, his solicitor, and friends, so as to secure at such trial as unrestricted and private communication between them as may be possible,

    863
    having regard only to the necessity of preventing any tampering with evidence, and any plans for escape, or such like consideration."
    In other words, that section was a mandatory enabling section—a direct command to the prison authorities that they should make provision for the purpose, not of destroying, but of ensuring and facilitating the access between the prisoner and his friends. He said it was an enabling section; but this Rule of the Lord Lieutenant's was a disabling Rule—
    "In pursuance of the General Prisons (Ireland) Act (1877), the General Prisons Board hereby order that the Rule shall he added to as follows:—Provided always, that the Visiting Committee or Governor may suspend and withdraw the permission hereby granted in any case when he or they consider it necessary so to do, for the purpose of maintaining good order, or for the purpose of preventing tampering with evidence," &c.
    In other words, that Order took away from the prisoners a privilege which the Act of Parliament conferred upon them. He took it for granted that the views of the Home Secretary were somewhat the same as those of the Irish authorities. He did not wish to say anything unpleasant; but he would recall this fact to the mind of the Committee—that when there were in this country a number of prisoners in custody charged with an offence even more atrocious than the Phœnix Park murders, and the Home Secretary was asked whether he would carry out the law as laid down by the Statute, and whether the prisoners would be allowed to have that unrestricted access with their legal advisers and their friends which the Statute conferred on them, the right hon. and learned Gentleman replied that they would have it in such manner as he thought right. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imply that he intended to suspend for a time the privileges of the prisoners in view of the public safety. But what happened? Within one or two days—such was the pressure which the unanimous opinion of this country, as expressed in the newspapers, brought upon him—he had to give back those privileges of which he had intended for a time to deprive them. If illegality were justifiable in any case it was in that, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to deal with a conspiracy, the atrocity and wideness of which were almost beyond anything in the world—
    864
    certainly beyond anything that the Phœnix Park murderers did. But the Home Secretary was not permitted by public opinion to do what he intended, even when the lives of thousands of citizens were placed, as he supposed, in jeopardy. What excuse, then, had the Government for resorting to similar illegalities when dealing with a far less formidable danger? The Chief Secretary for Ireland gave as his reason for breaking the law that it was necessary to prevent the prisoners from having communication with people outside which might be used for purposes of assassination. He (Mr. O'Connor) would not express any doubt whatever that that was the right hon. Gentleman's opinion; but he would tell the Committee what was the opinion held in Ireland on the action of the Government. It was that the Government were not afraid of these men communicating with persons outside; but they wanted to keep them in solitary confinement, so that they might be induced, by the horrors of such imprisonment, to turn informers. He would not comment on an unfortunate necessity; but it was the unfortunate necessity of Governments to have to employ informers for the purpose of tracing out atrocious crimes, and bringing atrocious criminals to justice. But the public opinion of this country would not permit, and the public opinion of no civilized country in the world would permit, the Government to use the horrors of solitary confinement on unconvicted prisoners—no Government could be permitted to use torture for the purpose of bringing its prisoners to be informers. This was his charge against the Government, and this was a matter which did not have reference to things that were past and gone—to men like the Phœnix Park murderers, who, as the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had said, were in their graves—it related to prisoners who were now in prison in Ireland, and who, before their trial, were being treated illegally, and deprived of visits which the Act of Parliament intended to confer upon them. They were being tortured in that way in the hope, on the part of the Government, that they would turn informers, and give evidence which might be true or false. What he wanted from the Government, and what he hoped the Committee would support him in demanding, was a pledge that these pri-

    865
    vileges should be restored to the prisoners. There should be no more of this torture upon the unfortunate prisoners, who ought to be allowed to have those visits from their friends which the Act of Parliament intended.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought it right that he should say a few words, as he had been referred to in the course of the discussion. The view he had taken, and which he had acted upon, and for which he held himself responsible in respect of this matter, was this—he need not say that he entirely approved of the principle of the clause that, as a general rule, untried prisoners should be placed upon a generous footing; but he could not assent to the proposition laid down by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) as to the effect of this clause. He had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the clause gave to all untried prisoners, under all circumstances whatever, a right to visits from their solicitor and from their friends—that that was a right which was given to them by statute, and one which no one had a right, under any circumstances, to take from them.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had no wish to deny that there was a right to surround these visits with safeguards, and to carry out certain precautions. But he maintained that the prisoners had a right to these visits under all circumstances.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that was a proposition from which he entirely differed, and anyone who read the clause could not doubt how the matter really lay. The clause laid it down that Rules were to be made with respect to communications, so as to secure to the prisoner—
    "As unrestricted communication between him and his solicitor and friends as may he possible, having regard only to the necessity of preventing any tampering with evidence, and any plans for escape, or other like consideration."
    Those words, he maintained, covered the whole of this matter, and the responsibility rested with those who were responsible for the safe custody of prisoners in respect of
    "Preventing any tampering with evidence, or any plans for escape, or other like consideration."
    He would give an illustration which he
    866
    thought was a fair one. He had reason to know, and in fact he might say that he did know, that the explosion at Clerkenwell was brought about by a communication which took place through a visit of this description. If the hon. Member's proposition was correct, then those who were responsible for the safe custody of the prisoners who were in Clerkenwell Gaol had no right and no power to prevent such communications. He maintained that to hold such a proposition as that was to say that the Statute was totally inconsistent with the public safety. [Mr. PARNELL: Then repeal the section."] He did not think the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who passed the Bill, would differ from him in that view. There was a special Rule with reference to communications with prisoners. It was, in his opinion, a proper view of the section that, as a general rule, communications were to be permitted; but it was obvious that those who were responsible for the safe custody of the prisoners must, upon their responsibility, judge how far these communications could be permitted at all, and in what manner they could be carried on consistently with that safe custody. That was the view he had acted upon; and, certainly, until he was corrected either by that House, or by the law, he should hold to that opinion. It must be proved, for instance, that it was within the knowledge of the Secretary of State or of the Lord Lieutenant.
    MR. PARNELL: It is the Governor who has the right to suspend the Rule?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the hon. Member for Galway was entirely mistaken when he represented that he (Sir William Harcourt) had first taken a particular course, and then had afterwards altered it. He had never altered it at all. The reason why, in the first instance, restrictions were placed upon the visits paid to the men connected with the nitro-glycerine conspiracy was because there was a difficulty at first in appointing a legal adviser. There was some misunderstanding about the matter; and until that was settled, and a regular legal adviser was appointed, he (Sir William Harcourt) did not feel justified in allowing unrestricted communication to take place. But as soon as he had satisfied himself

    867
    of the regularity of the appointment of the legal adviser those communications were permitted. He, therefore, begged to assure the hon. Member for Galway that the idea that he had taken some course or other under the Statute, and was afterwards driven from it by the pressure of public opinion, was an en tire misapprehension. It would be impossible to secure public safety without all these precautions. Of course, particular instances must arise in which exceptions must be made; but how often that could be done must rest upon the responsibility of those who had to carry out the law. Of course, if the Governor, or the Secretary of State, or the Lord Lieutenant had reason to think that, in the case of any particular prisoner, there was a danger of tampering with the evidence——
    MR. PARNELL: There is a warder listening.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Or a danger of planning some desperate means of escape, it was contrary to common sense to suppose that any special Rule which had been laid on the Table of Parliament was to preclude the Secretary of State or the Governor from taking those measures which would be instantly required. [Cheers.] He was very glad to hear that hon. Members took that view of the matter. The person immediately responsible must, of course, be the Governor of the gaol. He was the man who must have the best means of judging of the circumstances and necessities which arose in each particular case; but, of course, the Governor only acted under the authority of those who were placed over him. He (Sir William Harcourt) hoped that he had now satisfied the Committee as to the view he took of the principles of this clause, and as to the manner in which he had acted upon it. His view had always been perfectly clear, and his action upon it had been quite consistent. He had never attempted to do what the hon. Member had suggested was an illegality; but in a particular case, where he thought it unsafe to give the general liberty which was usually given, and which ought usually to be given, to untried prisoners, he had had regard to the powers conferred by the section, which powers gave him the right, and imposed on him the duty, of compelling the observance of certain restrictions
    868
    wherever they might be found to be necessary.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary did not make the statement with which he had now favoured the Committee in reply to the Question which he (Mr. Parnell) put to him some months ago, in reference to these untried prisoners. He (Mr. Parnell) asked him distinctly on that occasion whether he would permit those prisoners to see their legal advisers, as the law required, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman refused to say that he would. He (Mr. Parnell) repeated the Question several timesover; but he failed to get any other reply from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which clearly indicated that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in his mind an intention, so far as he had then gone, of refusing to allow the prisoners to see their legal adviser, except in the presence of the prison warders. But that course was departed from the very next day, in consequence, as he (Mr. Parnell) believed at the time, of representations that were made to the Home Office by the United States Consul or Minister.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Let me correct the hon. Gentleman on that point, though it is very immaterial. No such representations or communications, either directly or indirectly, were made.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was given to understand that representations were made to the American Government in favour of these prisoners, and with the view of obtaining for them treatment under the same regulations as those which would affect an English prisoner; and he was justified in inferring that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did act upon representations from them. But, at all events, the rights which were suspended were restored to the prisoners on the very day following the Question which he (Mr. Parnell) put to the Home Secretary. As to the particular point now before the Committee, he denied that the view of the law which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given was correct; and he maintained that the words of the Statute incontestibly proved the position he had taken up. The Statute required the Home Secretary to make Rules with respect to certain matters relating to visits to prisons, and so forth. He had to make Rules with

    869
    respect to communications between a prisoner, his solicitor, and his friends; but there was no power given to make a Rule under which the Governor of a prison might suspend any one of the Rules made. But that was what had practically been done in this case. If they had proceeded in a different way, and altered any of the Rules under the Statute, that would have been a different thing. If the Chairman of the Prisons Board, going over the Rules under the Act of 1877, had come upon anyone of them which, as it stood, he thought was not framed so as to prevent any tampering with evidence, or to prevent any plans for escape, then he could imagine that the Chairman would have been entitled to re frame the Rule, and would have so made it that prisoners, while having the right of receiving visits, would not be able to tamper with evidence, or make plans for escape, or other like consideration. But the right of a prisoner to receive visits was conferred by Statute; therefore, he contended that having made the Rules by Statute the Government were not entitled to pass one sweeping Rule giving power to any Governor of a prison to suspend in the case of any prisoner not only the Rules already made by the Chairman under the powers of the Statute, but actually the provisions of the Statute itself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had just stated that he thought it should be in the power of the Chief Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant to give directions with regard to any particular prisoner; but that was not what had been done in this case. A wholesale Rule had been made giving power to the Governor of a prison or the Justices to do this. Governors of prisons, receiving salaries in many cases of £120 a-year, and unpaid Justices were very different officials from the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary; and he submitted that he had made a case for the remission and reconstruction of this Rule. He wished to ask whether it was intended to have this Rule as a permanent addition to the Prison Rules in Ireland; and, if not, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman might see his way to express some hope that before Parliament met again and came to discuss this Vote this Rule would have been annulled and lost its force; and that, in the meanwhile, he would be able to say that the Rule should not be
    870
    put in force in respect to any prisoner except by the special direction of himself or the Lord Lieutenant.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was bound to observe that the Government were immensely impressed with the necessity for this Rule in most serious cases; but on the only occasion, except that of the Phœnix Park murders, when it was brought to his own knowledge that this Rule, or the policy which this Rule represented, was being put in force, he interfered, and recommended the Government to stop it. He could assure the hon. Member that the use to which this Rule was put should be most narrowly watched. There were only extremely exceptional circumstances under which it ought to be put into force; and those circumstances existed in Dublin in January, and might very well exist again in Dublin. But those circumstances would be very exceptional. As to the question whether this power, in the last resort, could be placed in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, he would carefully examine that. The debate had convinced him of the necessity of acting with extreme caution in putting the Rule in force, and of the danger of leaving it in the hands of the Governors, or even the Prisons Board; and if any means existed for placing it in the hands of the higher authorities that should be done. But the debate had not convinced him that the necessity for the Rule did not exist.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he could not see how, with the conditions which his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) had described—gratings and warders between prisoners and their visitors—prisoners could tamper with evidence, or make plans for escape.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, there was another matter in connection with this subject which had not been touched upon, and upon which he should like to have the opinion of the Chief Secretary. Whether it was legal or not, there was no doubt that the facilities for intercourse between untried prisoners and their friends or legal advisers had been very much restricted. From the point of view of the Chief Secretary, no doubt it was proper to restrict these facilities under certain circumstances; but he would ask whether, while intercourse between prisoners and their friends and advisers had been restricted, the police

    871
    officers in charge of prisoners had not had unlimited access at all times to these prisoners for the purpose, as one of them had very naively said the other day, of trying whether any one of them could assist the prosecution? That was, he thought, a still more objectionable course than the restriction of intercourse. He did not object to all legitimate means being employed to put down crime; but to incarcerate under suspicion men who might be perfectly innocent, and then to place such restrictions upon them as to practically forbid all intercourse with friends, and then to subject them in their cells at all hours to visits by the police for the purpose of pumping and worrying them, and so manufacturing informers, was a process deserving the most serious condemnation. He should like to ask the Chief Secretary whether these visits by the police were not allowed and facilitated in proportion as the visits of friends were restricted?
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he hoped the Committee would bear in mind the absolute truth of the description which had been given of the arrangements for these visits to prisoners. He had seen these arrangements himself, and he could assure the Committee that it was simply impossible for anything to pass between a prisoner and his visitors except words. It was impossible for a letter, or document, or article of any sort, to be transmitted from one to the other. Nothing could pass but words, and warders were there to listen to words; and if those words contained any plan, or project, or intimation, warning was at once given to the Government. That would defeat the idea of any plan or project of escape, or any illegality whatever; for with a warder on each side the effect of any such intimation of a plan would be to give the Government warning that such a scheme was on foot. What was the use of pretending to this Committee that the deprivation of these visits was necessary to prevent plans of escape or illegalities. The plain truth of this matter was that the visits were forbidden for the purpose of torture. Why not go back to the thumb-screw?
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that, the attention of the Committee having been drawn to the arrangements with regard to visits, he wished to bring to their
    872
    notice the treatment of tried and convicted prisoners in gaol. He did not hope, at that time of the Session, and at that hour, to get the Committee to take any very practical steps towards improving, to some extent, the condition of convicted prisoners, and to make it possible for the Government to do something towards their moral improvement while in prison, instead of devoting all its energy, and time, and money, to punishing and torturing them; but he wished to draw attention to the treatment of tried and convicted prisoners, and particularly in respect to the length of time they were kept on the plank bed. He regarded it as one of the greatest scandals of their prison system, and as one of the greatest disgraces to their civilization, that an unfortunate man, convicted of some small offence, should be subjected to the very same punishment—because, practically, it was the same—as a man who was convicted of some heinous offence—that for a month he had to lie on a plank bed with no protection between him and the plank. Under the Rules of the Prisons Board, every prisoner who was convicted of any offence was bound to lie on a plank bed for the first month of his imprisonment; so that the prisoner who was guilty of a serious offence, and had committed a grave crime against society, had only to suffer the same term on the plank bed as the man who was guilty of some small offence. If those who had framed the Prison Rules properly understood the subject to which they had devoted their attention, or had attempted to devote their attention, they would have known that if that punishment was to be deterrent and to improve a criminal, it should be resorted to at different periods of the imprisonment, so that the man guilty of a great offence should be punished more than the man who was guilty of a lighter offence. How did the system work at the present time? In Ireland men were arrested on very small pretexts, and he had particular reason to know that, for when the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to make an example of some formidable man in Ireland he was selected for the honour. During the first month of imprisonment a man got two hours a-day out of his cell; and for the rest of the day, unless he had the good fortune to be a hard labour prisoner,

    873
    and had to break stones, he was confined in a small cell 10 feet by 5 feet, and, without any means of getting exercise, he was engaged sitting down picking oakum, or chopping wood. He could get no exercise that would enable him to sleep at night upon his plank bed. During his own imprisonment the Governor of the prison wanted to impose upon him a rule which was not imposed in any other prison in Ireland. He did not wish to shock the Committee with the details now, or to recur to the subject, more than to say that when the matter came to be inquired into the Inspector of the Prisons Board found that he had been right, and that the Governor had been acting illegally. He wished to show what was the description of men to whom the Chief Secretary would entrust the working of these Rules. The Governor of that prison wanted to impose on him a menial duty, which no prisoner was bound by the Prison Rules to discharge, and to impose on him the performance of that duty in a public place where everybody in the prison would see him, and where all the Governor's visitors in his drawing room could inspect the performance of that duty. When he refused to comply with that order, he said it was no duty which a man was bound to perform, and asked the Governor to inflict some punishment. The Governor replied that it was no case of punishment; but he would compel him to do it, and he locked him for six days in a cell of 10 feet by 5 feet. During the whole of those six days he was not allowed out of the cell, and every night he had to sleep on a plank bed. What was a plank bed? He did not suppose that many hon. Members knew, when they were discussing this question, what this punishment was. A plank bed was three narrow deal boards nailed together, which stood up against the wall in the day, and at night were laid on the floor. He supposed the medical advisers of the Prisons Board recommended that, in order to facilitate the circulation of the blood, this bed should have a slant; and, consequently, it was four inches from the floor at the feet and eight inches at the head. With no mattress and no proper cover, and with his day clothes locked outside the door, the prisoner had to lie on that bed throughout the night. Such scant covering as he had was only about a yard wide, and it
    874
    was impossible for him to roll it round himself, and so protect himself from the cold. This was the sort of torture which was inflicted. If a man was imprisoned for a week or a fortnight he had this plank bed all the time; but if a man had committed a serious crime against society, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, he suffered this severity for the first month only; but after that the prison authorities improved his food and gave him a mattress, he was then comparatively a gentleman, and had charge of the other prisoners, simply because he had had the good fortune to commit a grave offence. In this Vote there was an Estimate of £490 for prisoners' bedding; but he found that the uniforms of the warders cost just double that amount. One suit of clothes to each of the warders, who were as 1 to 30 or 1 to 25 of the prisoners, cost twice as much as the entire amount of bedding, planks being very cheap. It was a disgrace and a scandal to civilization that such a state of things should be tolerated. It was a scandal that power should be given to Governors of prisons to punish men in that way without any appeal. In his case he was able to combat the Governor; but he would take the case of a less intelligent man. The Governor could do absolutely what he liked to him. What did the Governor do in his case? When he raised this dispute with him, although the Inspector decided that the Governor was wrong, and restored him to the exercise of which he had been deprived, and he was, by direction of the Lord Lieutenant, removed to another prison, the Governor deprived him of the marks to which he was entitled for industry while in prison. What was the effect of that? He remained six additional nights beyond the month on the plank bed. He would not trouble the Committee with further observations on this subject; but he thought it was a matter which the Committee ought to consider; and the more they studied it, and the more they looked at home to their own prison system, the less likely they would be to condemn foreign systems, whether under King Bomba or any body else.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to ask a question with regard to the treatment of a man who had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment,

    875
    under the Prevention of Crime Act, for a very slight offence. He was sent to Mullingar Gaol on the 7th May, and was afterwards removed to Queen's County; and when, on the 10th of August, when he was entitled to receive visitors, a gentleman went to see him, he was not allowed to see the prisoner, on the ground that the time had not expired. Unquestionably he had not been in that gaol long enough; but he had spent more than three months in Mullingar Gaol. He had put the matter before the Chief Secretary, and he wished to know whether he had obtained any information with regard to it; and, if so, what was the character of it?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had overlooked the hon. Gentleman's letter; but he would look up the case very carefully and make inquiry.
    MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to consider whether it would not be advisable to make some such provision as would enable a prisoner, who was not allowed to write a letter or see his friends for three months, to at least have the consolation of knowing that if he were ill the Governor of the gaol would communicate with his friends; or, on the other hand, if his friends were ill or dying, he should be informed. An unfortunate man convicted of an offence could not receive a single visit or letter, or hear a single word from the world outside during the first three months, and then he might receive a visitor, and again be without a word from outside for another three months. He thought that was a state of things to which the Chief Secretary or the Home Secretary might turn attention. It was not at all inconsistent with the punishment of crime that this should be done; nor did he think it would in any way make a gaol more desirable.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that though the provisions referred to by the hon. Members might appear severe they were based on the prison discipline of England; and he had no doubt that in Ireland they were also the result of very careful consideration by Commissions and Committees. No matter had been more carefully considered; and the result had been that in the case of short sentences, and in the early period, the severity of treatment was the greatest; while where the sentences were long, simply because they were
    876
    long, and were, consequently, more oppressive through their very length, the treatment was less severe. The result of experience was that that was the best way of dealing with prisoners. With regard to the suggestion as to prisoners being ill, it must be remembered that every prisoner had the right to present a Petition, in England to the Secretary of State, and in Ireland to the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary.
    MR. HARRINGTONasked whether there was any such provision printed in the Rules where a prisoner could see it?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTreplied, that there was such a provision. Every prisoner had the right to present a Petition. If a prisoner's friends could not visit him, he (Sir William Harcourt) would take good care they were communicated with with reference to his condition of life. The hon. Member must be perfectly aware that if the condition of life was endangering life the prisoner was invariably released from gaol. Nothing could be more erroneous than the impression that a prisoner suffering from ill-health was not treated with every consideration.
    MR. HARRINGTONpointed out that it was not set forth in the Prison Rules that a prisoner had the power of presenting a Petition. He (Mr. Harrington) had been a prisoner; he had studied the Rules; and he did not find amongst them any such Rule as the one the right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of. He knew that prisoners believed that they had not the power of presenting a petition in case of sickness; and he had never heard of a case where a prisoner's friends had been communicated with in case of his illness. He (Mr. Harrington) had made one omission with regard to the exceptional severity of the punishment of a prisoner during the first term of imprisonment. Not only was a prisoner required to lie upon a plank bed, but the food he was given was scarcely sufficient to sustain nature. In the Irish prisons the dietary was simply shameful; in English prisons there was an improved dietary. In Ireland the prisoner received, in the morning, 5 ozs. of bread, with half-a-pint of cocoa—untastable cocoa. For dinner he was given 5 ozs. of bread, and nothing else, except on three days a week, when he was given

    877
    half-a-pint of soup. For supper he got 5 ozs. of bread and half-a-pint of cocoa. The cocoa was sweetened with molasses, and contained no milk. A prisoner, therefore, had to live on 15 ozs. of brown bread a-day and a little cocoa, and that was his programme for the whole of the first month of his imprisonment. It was only during the second month of his imprisonment that he received 3 ozs. of meat in the week. The dietary at breakfast and supper was slightly improved; and, therefore, an habitual prisoner preferred to be committed for a couple of months—in fact, a premium was held out to him to commit a serious offence.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    (5.) £96,019, to complete the sum for the British Museum.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he would best consult the feelings of the Committee if he made but few observations upon this Vote. Mr. Walpole, whose absence from the House they all regretted, in moving this Vote last year, stated to the Committee that the transference of the Natural History Collection to South Kensington had made considerable progress. It was now on the eve of conclusion. The minerals, fossils, and plants were already installed in the new Museum; while the last and most considerable of the Biological Departments, that of zoology, was in course of removal, and would be established in its new abode during the autumn. In the great Entry Hall of the new Natural History Museum it was proposed to place a number of the largest and most interesting specimens. Round the Hall were 12 bays, which it was proposed to appropriate to a type or index Collection, illustrated by diagrams, and which it was hoped would prove interesting to visitors, and serve as an introduction to the general Collection. The Northern Hall would be devoted to a Collection of British animals. It was proposed to extend the system of labelling, so that, as far as possible, each of the more interesting specimens might tell its own tale. Small maps were also largely used, coloured in such a manner as to show the distribution of some of the more interesting forms in space and
    878
    time. He thought that those hon. Members who had seen these maps would agree that they were most interesting and instructive. The new Sculpture Gallery, erected from the fund bequeathed by the late Mr. William White, had been completed, and the friezes from the tomb of Mausolus were being removed into it. The Committee was aware that the Museum contained a very large number of specimens preserved in alcohol. These had long been a source of anxiety to the Trustees; but he was happy to say that, the Government having at length consented to find the necessary funds, these specimens were now being transferred to a separate building. The principal additions to the Collection had been the Stowe Manuscripts—996 in number—purchased from Lord Ashburnham, with the consent of the Treasury, and subject to the Vote of Parliament. The Trustees regretted that Her Majesty's Government did not see their way to purchase the whole Ashburnham Collection. The Stowe portion comprised a large number of volumes relating to English history, comprising over 42 Anglo-Saxon Charters, dating from A.D. 693 to the 11th century; wardrobe-book of Edward II.; wardrobe and jewel accounts of Queen Elizabeth; correspondence of Sir Thomas Edmondes, Ambassador in Prance and the Low Countries, temp. Elizabeth and James I., 12 vols.; correspondence of Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 1677, 16 vols.; distribution of forfeited lands in Ireland, 1677, 16 vols.; letters of the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough to Secretary Craggs; various diplomatic and literary correspondence; an original Privy Council book, 1660–1670; and several separate documents and letters of interest—e. g. letter of the Earl of Derby, afterwards Henry IV.; an original warrant for levy of ship money, County Bucks, with return of defaulters, headed by the name of John Hampden; secret Treaty between Cromwell and France, 1654, &c.; English literature and topography:—Psalter with Anglo-Saxon glasses; register of Hyde Abbey, with 220 drawings, 11th century; English homilies, end of 12th century; a Gower, a Nassyngton, and a Hampole, several chartularies of English monasteries; 12th and 15th centuries, including the Boldon Book of Durham; a register

    879
    of St. Thomas in Southwark; and a Corporation register of Winchester. Heraldic MSS., comprising the Collections of Anstis, Garter and various county visitations; the Irish Collection of Dr. O'Conor, being early MSS. of the 18th and 15th centuries, including a manuscript of the Brehon Laws; a volume of the Annals of the Four Masters; a large number of autograph letters, beginning with one from Henry IV., and many other (over 900) very interesting documents. In the department of Oriental Antiquities one of the most interesting acquisitions had been an inscribed cylinder of the 5th century B.C. The inscription began with the name, title, and genealogy of Nabonidus, then King of Babylon. Then followed a description of a restoration of an ancient monument, the Shrine of the Sun God at Sippira. In ancient times it was the custom to place in the foundations of any considerable building a record of its creation, and Nabonidus was very anxious to find that belonging to the Temple at Sippira. After much labour, he succeeded in doing so, and described his discovery of the record of Naram-Sin, son of Sargon the First, whose date he gave as no less than 3,200 years before his time—that was, 3,700 B.C. At the conclusion he called on any Prince who might come after him to restore the Temple, and preserve the record of his name. The former wish was beyond his (Sir John Lubbock's) power; the latter he now endeavour to fulfil. In addition to the objects purchased, the Museum had received during the year a considerable number of donations, including a very interesting series of groups of British birds with their nests and eggs, or young, preserved by Lord Walsingham, Lord Lovat, and Mr. Powell; a very beautiful Collection of 165 drawings, by Thomas Bewick, presented by his daughter. Several new publications had been issued during the year, including catalogues of Greek and Oriental coins, guides to the Exhibition Galleries in the Natural History Museum, and an autotype copy of the Magna Charta, &c. The Reading Room had been kept open from the beginning of September until 9 P.M., by means of the electric light. Desires had more than once been expressed in this Committee that duplicates should be distributed to local Collections. The Trustees
    880
    had been most anxious to carry out the wishes of the Committee in this, as, indeed, in all other respects. In the course of the last year more than 13,000 duplicate specimens had been distributed among eight institutions—namely, the Museums of Edinburgh, Nottingham, Owen's College, Manchester; Marlborough College, Carlisle; Halifax, the Somersetshire Natural History Society, and the Haberdashers' Company. The Museum publications had also been presented to various Free Libraries. In an old Institution like the British Museum they could not, of course, expect a large increase in the numbers of visitors every year. In 1881, moreover, there was a sudden bound in consequence of the opening of the new Natural History Museum. Nevertheless, last year there was a further increase of 50,000, bringing the numbers up to nearly 1,250,000. It was also a satisfactory feature that the number of students rapidly increased, having in the Zoological Department alone more than trebled in the last 10 years; while, if they compared the total number of visitors, they would find that in five years they had risen from 700,000 to over 1,200,000. In this case, however, allowance must be made for the opening of the New Museum at South Kensington. A strong desire had been expressed that portions of the Museum should be open to the public during the evening, and he could assure the Committee that the Trustees fully sympathized with that wish. He had recently the opportunity of stating to the House, in reply to the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. D. Grant), the views of the Trustees. They hoped that, ere long, a system of electric lighting for the district would be brought into operation, and they would then apply to Government to enable them to open certain departments in the evening. He could assure the Committee that it was the earnest desire of the Trustees to render our great National Collections not only as interesting and instructive, but also as accessible as possible.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had listened with pleasure to the statement of the hon. Baronet; but it seemed to him that it was extremely desirable that there should be greater unity of administration between the British Museum and the South Kensington Museum. He called attention to the fact the other

    881
    night when another Vote was under discussion. If the British Museum were to send to the South Kensington Museum all their patterns, enamels, and minor articles, a good collection might be formed there; as it was, these articles were distributed between the two Museums; and he suggested to the hon. Baronet and his co-Trustees the desirability of planning some general administration of the two Museums. In that way he believed that a good deal of money might be saved, and the rivalry between the two establishments would be avoided.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had recommended a fusion of the two Museums. Now, between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning was a strange hour to deal with a question of this importance; but he must point out that if there was to be any fusion, the younger and the weaker Museum should fly to the larger, and greater, and stronger Museum. There were many points in which his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) touched with great ability; but there was only one of those points upon which he (Mr. Beresford Hope) desired to say a word. He wished to express the profound disappointment which was felt in many quarters, that Her Majesty's Government did not extend their bounty, and that when, out of the Ashburnham Collection they purchased the Stowe Collection of MSS., they did not also buy the other Collection of MSS. called the Appendix. It seemed a strange argument which deterred the Government from purchasing the two Collections.
    MR. COURTNEYpointed out that there was a special Vote for the Ashburnham Collection, under which the observations of the right hon. Gentleman would be more appropriate.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that, inasmuch as that was so, he would defer any remarks he had to make.
    MR. TOMLINSONremarked, that the Reading Room of the British Museum was very defective in the matter of ventilation. He trusted that the hon. Baronet would turn his attention to the subject.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he would make inquiries into the question raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Mt.
    882
    Tomlinson). The subject introduced by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was too large a one to discuss at that hour of the morning. He thought it right, however, to point out that the authorities of the two Museums had taken steps to avoid any competition.
    Vote agreed to.
    (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £45,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the purchase of certain Manuscripts from the Collection of the Earl of Ashburnham."
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he was sorry this Vote was not a larger one, because if it had been larger they would have been able to have bought those other and valuable MSS. known as the Appendix. He need not trouble the Committee by going over the whole ground. The Committee knew well enough that Lord Ashburnham's Collection comprised four parts, of which three were bought en bloc; but to a certain portion of two of them the French Government laid a claim, and this Government, he was sorry to say, while they allowed the claim, rejected the residue. The distinguishing features of the Stowe Collection were the historical Collections of letters of Diplomatists of the last century, and of other valuable historical documents, including a very curious Irish series. The Appendix, on the other hand, which he extremely regretted they had not obtained, was extremely valuable in an artistic aspect. One of these MSS., for instance, was a small Book of Hours, comprising miniatures, one of which bore the name of Pietro Perugino, while others were of the most exquisite perfection. The Committee knew, of course, that a collection of MSS. was a thing in which each item had its distinctive value. It was not like a consecutively-numbered volume; and as, in one word, this Appendix Collection was a unique gem for any nation to possess, it was no reason for refusing it that the distinctive Stowe Collection was to be bought, while even this was to be tabled for the benefit of Ireland. They allowed the Hamilton MSS. to be sold last year, and now they had also allowed a far more valuable and inte-

    883
    resting Collection to escape their hands. He must note that only an additional £45,000 would be involved in the matter, because that amount would have purchased the Appendix. Had they been building an iron-clad, nothing would have been thought of so small a sum. In this case the Committee should also know that the Museum offered to make up £25,000 by the sacrifice, at much inconvenience, of so much of its annual grant, in order to contribute, out of its own resources, to the purchase money; but the Government refused to entertain the offer. That was a Collection that ought not to have been lost; and in the name of the British Museum, in the name of Art, in the name of this country, which in these matters ought to hold its own, he protested against the ill-judged economy displayed in this proceeding.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he simply regretted that he did not move the reduction of the last Vote by £20,000. It appeared, from what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) said, that if the Government had been willing to give some more money for the Ashburnham Collection, the British Museum would have given £20,000. It was evident, therefore, that the Trustees had £20,000 to spare; and he would, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote by £10,000. He did not suppose all these valuable old MSS. would be destroyed if the State did not become possessed of them; somebody would buy them, and somebody would preserve them, so that those who wished to go and see the Collection could do so. There could not be the slightest object in our having the MSS.; let other people have them if they wished; we should save our £40,000, and those interested in the MSS. could still go and see them, or, as an hon. Friend suggested, by means of photographs we could get all we wanted out of them. He would venture to say not 100 people in the year went to see the MSS. in the British Museum; and he doubted if 50 would be sufficiently interested to go and see the Ashburnham Collection. Why, therefore, was the nation to spend £45,000 for the 'fads" of a few individuals? It seemed to him that £35,000 was quite enough to hand over to the Trustees of the British Museum to buy what was worth buying from the Collection.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £35,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the purchase of certain Manuscripts from the Collection of the Earl of Ashburnham."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought his hon. Friend, on a little reflection, would see that this was scarcely the way to meet the Vote. The proposal was to buy the Collection, subject to the sanction of Parliament, for £45,000; but the purchase must be made of that particular part of the Collection as it stood in one transaction, subject to Parliamentary approval, between Lord Ashburnham and the Trustees of the British Museum. If the hon. Member wished to negative the transaction altogether, he should move the rejection of the Vote. He must either take the Collection or reject the bargain—a mere reduction of the Vote would not meet his object.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he could confirm all that had been said by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope) in reference to this Collection. It was unfortunate that the Government had not resolved upon the purchase of the Collection in its entirety for the country. Though the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) spoke sneeringly of it, it was one of those things of which anyone knowing anything about it would feel proud that his country should be the possessor. He had had an opportunity, by the courtesy of the Trustees, of seeing some of the MSS. in the Collection; and he was fairly astonished at the beauty, the rarity, the matchless-ness, he might say, of the Collection. There were things there that if any Gentleman saw them in a foreign country he would say they were worth going any number of miles to see. There was a chance not quite gone of securing the whole; the Government had given no pledge that they would not ask for more money next year; and there was the probability of their further considering the matter in the Recess. This discussion, short and inadequate as it must be, would tend to awaken interest in the minds of hon. Members; and if Gentlemen would take the opportunity, during the Recess, of looking at the Collection—which he was informed was

    885
    to remain at the British Museum for a certain time, Lord Ashburnham not intending to dispose of it immediately—he was sure hon. Members would see it was an opportunity not lightly to be parted with. As to what the hon. Member said, that it did not matter by whom the Collection was bought, of course the MSS. would not be destroyed; they would be bought by some connoisseur, if not by some foreign nation; but anyone with feelings of patriotism would be extremely anxious that the British Government should be the custodians of these treasures. There was one particular volume which he would venture to say would be acknowledged to be in itself almost worth the £45,000, with illuminations by some of the Old Masters of the schools, of a beauty and rarity past all description. This country would be doing a short-sighted and foolish act if it did not secure, while it could, the whole of the Collection.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he had already expressed his regret that the Trustees would not be enabled to purchase the further part of the Collection, and he would not refer to that again. He concurred in all that had fallen from the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope). It should be said, in reference to what had been said by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), that Lord Ashburnham wished to dispose of the whole Collection, and was not willing to break it up, so in regard to the present proposal it was a question between taking all or none. If the hon. Member would go to the British Museum and examine for himself, he would see that this was not a question of anybody's "fads," but that this was a Collection of the most interesting documents, throwing a great light on history. He hoped the hon. Member would see his way to withdrawing his opposition.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not go to a Division. Much interest was felt in Ireland in the Ashburnham Collection; and it was the intention of the Government to give that portion dealing with Celtic literature to the Royal Irish Academy. The Irish MSS. would become the property of the Irish nation; and he felt sure the hon. Member, who had often expressed his sympathy with
    886
    Ireland, would, for that reason, not press a Division.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he should like to know from the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Celtic portion of the Collection would really be given to Ireland, or whether a selection would be made by the authorities of the British Museum, and only the refuse sent to Ireland? He certainly should vote with the hon. Member for Northampton unless a specific pledge were given that the Irish portion should be relegated to Ireland? It would be satisfactory, as satisfying all doubt, if the Secretary to the Treasury would state distinctly whether the portion which appertained to Ireland would be sent to Ireland in its entirety?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, it was fully explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the purchase was sanctioned by the Treasury, that Mr. Bond, the Librarian of the British Museum, and Sir Samuel Ferguson, President of the Royal Irish Academy, were united jointly to make the selection. They met and decided how the division should be made—which MSS. should go to Ireland, and which to the British Museum. No difficulty arose in settling the matter.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 84: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 295.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £8,530, 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 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery."
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, they had heard not long ago something said about the farce of voting money at such an hour in the morning; and he might be justified in a Motion to report Progress. But, as he probably would not succeed in carrying that Motion, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division; but he would point out to the Secretary to the Treasury that it was impossible for him to give the reasons he proposed to assign for moving the reduction of the Vote pursuant to the Notice which stood in

    887
    his name on the Paper; but he would state, very shortly, why he gave Notice of that Amendment, and he hoped at a future time to be able to place before the Committee a very important matter, one which concerned the administration of the National Gallery, and in which he considered the administration had erred, whereby the taxpayers of this country were compelled to pay a much larger sum than ought to be demanded at their hands. His Amendment had to do with the travelling expenses of the Director, and this was a question in which the present Chairman (Sir Arthur Otway) ought to take peculiar interest. The Chairman would recollect that during the Directorate of Sir Charles Eastlake there was every year on the Estimates for the National Gallery an item for the expenses of the travelling agent of the Gallery; and the present Chairman of Committees led a movement which, after several years of contention, was successful in removing this item from the Estimates. The reasons given for doing away with that expenditure were that it was a fact that pictures could be much more cheaply purchased in England than on the Continent, and that, if purchased on the Continent, it was far better that purchases on behalf of the Gallery should be effected by private individuals rather than by a representative of the British Government, whose appearance at once excited the cupidity of dealers abroad, and sent up the prices of pictures. But the unfortunate practice was kept up yet. In this Vote was included an item of £150 for the travelling expenses of the Director, and there was a larger sum last year. Anyone acquainted with Italian picture sales would be aware that the moment it was known that the National Gallery was in the market pictures would not be parted with except at a very high price; but he did not see why the national purchases should not be conducted on the same principle as those of private individuals. Nations, like individuals, should buy in the cheapest market. Then, also, in England the auction sales were not sufficiently well watched; and he could recall several occasions within recent years where admirable pictures had been sold in London, and which ought to have been purchased by the National Gallery. To illustrate that he would give one instance, that of a picture
    888
    known to be a Paul Veronese, "The Vision of St. Helena," one of the most beautiful works of the Master in the National Collection. That picture was sold at Christie's 15 years ago. At the time he admired the picture very much; and, not being sufficiently in funds himself, he persuaded a friend of his—now no more—to become the purchaser. That gentleman—his name would be known to many in the House, the late Mr. Munroe—was at first unwilling to buy it; but eventually allowed himself to be persuaded to buy it for £300. Some years afterwards, upon the death of Mr. Munroe, that picture came again into the market, and was sold at the same auction rooms under similar conditions, and then it was bought for the nation at the price of £3,455. Now, he wanted to know, why did not the Director of the National Gallery attend at the first sale and buy the picture, thus saving over £3,000 to the nation? He could name several other similar instances. And in the administration of the National Gallery he would submit that the Trustees of the Gallery had not sufficient power—they were, to all intents and purposes, absolute dummies. They could give an opinion, and that was all; all power was vested in the Director, and the Trustees could not control him at all. There was also in his Notice a reference to the glazing of the pictures in the Gallery; but at that time in the morning he must pass that by, owing to the position in which the Committee found themselves. In November last the House was engaged in discussing New Rules, projected, they were told, so that Members could resort to their original right and power of criticizing the Estimates; but, like too many things said in the same quarter, "they kept the word of promise to the ear to break it to the hope." In reference to the glazing, he would only say that a great portion of the pictures were nothing more than looking-glasses; it was impossible to examine them, even in summer time. It was quite a moot point whether the glazing was right or wrong, some experts said the glass was injurious. But, in any case, he saw no reason why, in the summer months, the glass should not be removed, in order that the public might then have a chance of seeing the works. He did not know whether the

    889
    hon. Member for South-East Lancashire (Mr. Agnew) was in the House; he was in hope that he would have given the Committee the benefit of his experience on the point; but, doubtless, he was tired out with the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government and had gone to bed, and he did not blame him for it. He should content himself with moving the reduction of the Vote by £150, the travelling expenses of the Director of the Gallery.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £8,380, 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 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not know exactly who was present to defend the National Gallery, or who was going to give the Committee an essay on Art. He presumed it was the Secretary to the Treasury; if so, he would ask him to explain who it was decided on the purchases of pictures? Was it the Trustees, or was it the Director of the National Gallery? He presumed it was the latter. That gentleman, he had no doubt, was a very able man in his way; but he did not think he was quite fitted for the performance of this function. He seemed to have shown himself greatly mistaken. The National Gallery ought to contain examples of our best English artists; but where, for instance, was the work of Frederick Walker? Happening to be in the Gallery the other day, he found there was no picture of this painter's there; but he found there was a free indulgence of the "fad" for early Italian painters. The Secretary to the Treasury was, no doubt, aware that there were fine specimens of Andrea Mantegna at Hampton Court; but what happened at the Duke of Hamilton's sale? An Andrea Mantegna was bought, a small and comparatively worthless one; it was forgotten, he presumed, that they had a large collection of Andrea Mantegnas at Hampton Court. Then at the Duke of Marlborough's sale another Andrea Mantegna was bought for £2,500, and he was given to understand there were grave doubts as to whether it was an Andrea Mantegna or not; but, whether it was or not, the nation had enough of
    890
    these before; and why on earth should the nation be forced to buy one at the Hamilton sale, and then another which might be genuine or not, probably was not; but in any case it was a poor specimen, and give 2,000 guineas for it? He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury, who understood Art, as he did every other question, to give his opinion as to the merits of the Director of the National Gallery in regard to the purchase of pictures, whether he approved of the selections, or whether he did not agree that it was desirable there should be some sort of authority to decide what should or should not be bought? Without such control the whole of the money that could possibly be so used would be expended in the purchase of early Italian pictures, simply because the Director had a "fad" for it.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the purchases of pictures were made by the Trustees. The Director, no doubt, constantly advised them, and his advice and judgment were valuable; but it rested with the Trustees to make the purchase, the Trustees taking a personal interest in the matter, and examining the pictures before the purchase. With regard to what the hon. Member said as to the preponderance of Andrea Mantegna's, he could only say it was obvious that the Government having appointed certain Trustees to make the purchases for the National Gallery, must have confidence in them, and accept their advice. As to the travelling expenses and other points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), it was to be observed that this was a very small Vote, covering the expenses of only one journey a-year by the Director to the Continent, and very different to the Vote allowed for a travelling agent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave an interesting personal recollection in reference to a picture which the Gallery failed to purchase, and which Mr. Munroe secured 15 years ago. Well, he could not explain why it was not done 15 years ago; it was to be regretted, of course, that the picture was not bought when it would have cost a much smaller sum than the nation eventually gave for it; but the moral attaching to it was the request that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should use his influence with the Trustees when again he saw anything of the kind in

    891
    the market to save a repetition of the error. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the expenses for glazing. He was told, as a matter of fact, that the unglazed pictures were much injured; that the glass was a nuisance, and interfered with a proper view, there could be no doubt; but pictures suffered great damage without it. But, however, this was a point he would not argue now.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Committee ought to know, at such an hour of the morning as had now been reached (3 o'clock), how much longer they were to go on. It was nothing but a perfect scandal to go on in this way; and if they were to go on with Bills after Supply, he would move that Progress be reported.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, there was really no discussion upon this Vote. He hoped the Committee would allow it to be taken.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his observation related to the Business to be taken afterwards. If any other Business was to be taken, Progress ought to be reported now.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the Government were quite wrong in what they had said. The Trustees of the National Gallery had no power at all; the whole power resided in the Director of the National Gallery. If the hon. Gentleman would make inquiries of any of the Trustees, he would find that that was so. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had had some experience in these matters, and he knew perfectly well that the Director was the sole person who had the power of deciding. But he did not want to go into the controversy about the glazing, further than to say that he stuck to his point; and he would refer the hon. Gentleman to some of the very best experts in London, who would agree with him (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). It was absolutely scandalous that the Committee should vote away these large sums of money without any power on the part of hon. Members to criticize the Estimates. He should have been glad to have pointed out how much money had been wasted by buying questionable pictures which ought not to appear in the National Gallery at all; but there was really no time for it. The principle he had always
    892
    maintained was that their National Gallery ought to have no pictures except well-authenticated works of the highest class; but instead of these, whenever there was a sensational sale, like the Hamilton sale, the Director rushed in and bought pictures, some of which had afterwards to be re-christened. No less than five pictures bought under certain names had had to be re-christened, and now had to make their appearance in the catalogue of the National Gallery under different names, or under no names at all. However, he would say no more—he could only protest against the Vote being taken at a time when there was no real opportunity to discuss it.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (8.) £1,277, to complete the sum for the National Portrait Gallery.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)—put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 251.]
(Secretary Sir William Harcourt, The Lord Advocate.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 251.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 15th August.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 6 (Reservation of rights of Lord Advocate).
  MR. A. GRANT MR. A. GRANT moved an Amendment to leave out the concluding words "or custom." The one recommendation which attached to the Bill, as he understood it, and as he was quite sure the people of Scotland understood it, was that it gave to the Scotch people an Officer who was' to have charge of the administrative Business of Scotland, without being interfered with, or hampered by any competing or overruling authority. But what would become of that unity of administration if the clause was passed in its present form? The clause reserved to the Lord Advocate all the rights, duties, powers, and privileges which had hitherto belonged to

  893
  his Office. He knew that this was rather a delicate subject; but, with all due respect to the Lord Advocate, and to his Office, and with no desire to detract from its importance or its dignity, he must say that it seemed to him that the reservation made by this clause was altogether incompatible with the proper working of the new arrangements. He would take, for example, the part which the Lord Advocate had hitherto played in the matter of patronage, with regard to Government appointments in Scotland, or the part which the Lord Advocate had played in taking the initiative in Government legislation for Scotland; and there were many other functions which the Lord Advocate had hither to performed in his capacity as political Representative of the Government of Scotland. Now, all these duties and functions had hitherto belonged to the Lord Advocate by custom; but by the 5th clause they had already provided that a large number of these functions were henceforth to devolve on the new Minister. If in the future the Lord Advocate was to occupy a position somewhat analogous to that of the chief Law Officers of the Crown in England and Ireland, that ought to be clearly indicated in the Bill. But if, on the other hand, the Bill meant what it said, and the Lord Advocate was in future to perform all these functions which he had hitherto discharged under statute or by custom, then he (Mr. Grant) greatly feared that the result would be that they would find themselves landed in all those difficulties and all those inconveniences which were certain to arise from having two ill-defined and overlapping authorities; and he had no doubt that that would detract to a very great extent from the benefit which they might otherwise derive from the new arrangements proposed in the Bill. His object in moving the Amendment was only to endeavour more clearly to define the relative positions of the two officials. It might be that the Government would not find themselves able to accept his Amendment; but, if that should be the case, he trusted that they would, at all events, find themselves able to explain more clearly than the Bill did as it stood what were to be the relations between the Lord Advocate and the new Minister, and what was the real line which was to divide the duties of the one from the
  894
  duties of the other. It was possible that if they could not see their way to accept his Amendment, they might see their way to re-cast the clause, and to make it run in this form—
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lord Advocate shall continue to exercise all the rights and privileges," &c.
  He thought that would be an improvement on the clause as it stood at present, and that it would be accepted as an improvement by the people of Scotland.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, to leave out the words "or custom." (Mr. A. Grant.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or custom' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the hon. Member was under some misapprehension as to what the Bill proposed to do. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that the Bill took away from the Lord Advocate something which he at present possessed; but, as a matter of fact, it took away nothing at all from him—not a hair's breadth. Anyone who read the Schedule would find that it did not transfer any authority, property, or privilege which the Lord Advocate now had. The hon. Gentleman objected to the words "by custom;" but the words were used rather in a colloquial than a statutable sense. The power of the Lord Advocate existed by custom rather than by Act of Parliament. It was an old customary Office; but the Lord Advocate would still retain all the dignity, privileges, power, and authority that he ever possessed, and there was nothing in this Bill to create the smallest conflict between the Lord Advocate and the new Official. The powers to be exercised by the new Official were not the powers of the Lord Advocate at all, but were powers taken solely and entirely out of the Office and functions of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman really confounded two very different things. There might be many things in which the Lord Advocate advised the Secretary of State; but they were not a part of his duties. Indeed, it might just as well be said that other officials from whom the Secretary of State took advice had those powers. The Secretary of State, if he were wise, naturally took the advice of people who understood things better than himself. That was

  895
  part of the duties and functions of the Secretary of State; and there was not any foundation for supposing that there was anything in this Bill which at all impaired, in the smallest degree, the authority possessed by the Lord Advocate, either by statute or by custom.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was glad that the words proposed to be left out were to be retained, for this new Officer who was to be created seemed to be neither flesh nor fowl, and no one knew what he was to do. He was to carve out his own business, and he would be looked upon in Scotland as the Officer, and the Lord Advocate would be entirely subordinate. They had not heard any warm speech from the Lord Advocate in support of the Bill—indeed, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would like immensely to know how the learned Lord could possibly support a Bill of this kind? He knew perfectly well what was the opinion of the whole Scottish Bar three or four years ago.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Three or four years ago they had not got this Bill.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give him time to finish his sentence. A proposal was made; but the whole Bar rose in opposition to it, and a great deputation came up from the Scottish Bar to see him on the subject, because they maintained that the proposal then made would destroy the dignity of the Lord Advocate. What might be the arguments, political or otherwise, or the motives which had induced the Scottish Bar to take a different line of action now to that which they took before he did not know; but nothing could have been stronger than the line they took on the occasion, three or four years ago, that he referred to. If the Scottish Bar were now so enthusiastic in support of this Bill, why did not the Lord Advocate rise and support it? What had he got to say for it? He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) wanted to know now from him what his opinion was as to whether the new Officer would appropriate any of his duties; and whether his position would in any way be changed? Was he to be merely a Legal Adviser to the new Official? If so, he would no longer be Lord Advocate in the real sense of the word—he would sink into a Law Officer, and re-
  896
  main that and nothing more; and that was a totally different thing from the position which the Lord Advocate in Scotland had hitherto held. The Law Officers of England had never occupied the position held by the Lord Advocate in Scotland; and if there were to be these duties at all, he would much rather have seen the Lord Advocate entrusted with them. Even if it involved the result that the Lord Advocate should not necessarily be a lawyer, and should have to depend on the Solicitor General for Scotland to assist him in legal matters, he would like to know from the learned Lord Advocate what he apprehended his duties would be when this Bill was passed, if it ever was passed, as he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) certainly hoped it would not be, and how far the Lord Advocate's duties would be changed by it? It was quite clear that the more the Bill was seen by the Scotch Members the less it was liked; and he did not believe that the people of Scotland cared two straws whether it was passed or not. He was certain that unless great care was taken of the position of the Lord Advocate the learned Lord would entirely sink from the possession of ancient duties which he so worthily fulfilled; and he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would be very sorry if that should prove to be the case.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he was very glad to have heard the expression with which the right hon. Gentleman concluded; but he wished, in a very few words, to answer his questions in the order in which he had put them. The right hon. Gentleman had first asked as to the position taken up by the Faculty of Advocates with respect to this Bill, and had referred to the position which they took up when his own Bill was before Parliament in 1878, when they raised a strong opposition against it. But that was not their position with respect to the present Bill at all; on the contrary, by a majority, they had passed a Resolution favourable to it. That Resolution, when contrasted with the position which the Faculty took up in 1878, would show that the estimate which the right hon. Gentleman had formed of the respective characters of the two measures, and of the relative effect of them upon the Office of the Lord Advocate, was by no means the same as that of those who

  897
  understood the Office, perhaps, better than the right hon. Gentleman himself did. It was an exceedingly significant fact that there was a different position taken up upon this Bill; and he entirely agreed with the Body to which he belonged in the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman's own Bill would have been greatly injurious to the position of the Lord Advocate than this Bill would be. It would require very few words to explain how that was so. He would not repeat what had been said more than once in reference to this Bill by the Home Secretary. It would be superfluous to do so, as they really wished to get on with the Bill. He did not think he had seen the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) in his place yesterday, otherwise he might have heard some of the explanations that were given in regard to the various points raised. It was quite plain, from the exposition already given, that there was no function or duty of the Lord Advocate which would devolve upon the new Officer at all. The right hon. Gentleman further asked, what would be the relations of the Lord Advocate to the new Officer? He thought he might say that they would be the same, and necessarily the same, as the relations at present existing between the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State, or any other Public Department. The Secretary of State performed certain duties, and when he thought fit he advised with the Lord Advocate, as he did with other Departments, and generally acted upon the advice thus received. He saw no reason to doubt that the existing relations between the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate would be repeated in the future relations between the Lord Advocate and the new functionary. He (the Lord Advocate) would be the very last person to be a party to anything which, in his judgment, would directly or indirectly tend to lower the dignity of his Office, or even have a semblance of doing so; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite might make his mind comparatively easy after the line which had been taken by the Faculty of Advocates on this subject.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it seemed to him some explanation was required of the words "by custom." The Home Secretary had referred to
  898
  legal custom and colloquial custom. If it was the case, as stated by the Lord Advocate, that the Secretary of State had conceded in many things sometimes more and sometimes less to the Lord Advocate, then the Committee should understand what were the duties of the Lord Advocate's Office by legal custom. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. A. Grant) had referred to various matters—the conduct of legal business, the bringing in of Bills, and the conduct of Parliamentary Business, and patronage had also been referred to; was that a legal or a colloquial custom? Another mutter he wished to refer to was in regard to statistics, statistics of local taxation. Up to a few Sessions ago Members were referred to the Lord Advocate as being responsible for these statistics. Would this subject rest with the Lord Advocate, or would it be conveyed to the new Office? He disagreed with the hon. Member for Leith when he said the effect of the creation of this new Office would be to reduce the Lord Advocate to the position of an English or an Irish Attorney General; the Office of Lord Advocate would remain in an infinitely higher position. Not only was he the Attorney General for Scotland, but he was the Minister of Justice for Scotland, and he performed great and high functions, which did not appertain to the Office of Attorney General. The Lord Advocate would still maintain that high and dignified position, though he must convey much of the minor functions that had devolved upon him from the Secretary of State to the new Officer. Before the Bill was disposed of, however, they ought to know what were the duties of a legal character remaining with the Lord Advocate.
  MR. A. GRANTsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken seemed to think that he had expressed a wish that the Lord Advocate should become a mere Legal Officer. He had expressed no such wish. On the contrary, he had said he had no such wish. What he did was to ask the Home Secretary whether that would be the effect of the Bill or not?
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he wished to remind the Committee—["Oh!"]—if the Committee wished to go to bed, he should move to report Progress. The Home Secretary told

  899
  the House yesterday that the whole thing was of an experimental character, and that it could not be expected that the Lord Advocate, or any other Minister, could say distinctly what duties would fall within the sphere of the new Office.
  MR. WARTONsaid, they were always delighted to hear the Lord Advocate; but he wished to call attention to one observation that had fallen from him. He had told the Committee that the Bill did not detract from the dignity and position of his Office; but he could not have studied the 2nd clause, which realty put the Lord Advocate at the bottom of the Board.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should like an answer to the question he had put. If no further explanation was to be given, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. A. Grant) would divide the Committee.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he should like to save the Committee the trouble of a Division by arriving at a decision by a shorter process. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy asked a question which had been answered 50 times. Over and over again had he repeated it; but he would give the answer once more. The Government had no intention whatever of taking anything from the Lord Advocate that belonged or had belonged to the Office; and for the further satisfaction of the hon. Member he would say the Government had no intention of degrading the Lord Advocate to the unhappy position of the Attorney General or Solicitor General for England.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given no information as to who would be responsible for the statistics of local taxation.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could only give this answer—that it was a great subject, but one upon which he was entirely ignorant. If the Lord Advocate had been responsible before he would be so hereafter; if the Secretary of State was responsible, then the new Minister would be responsible for it hereafter.
  MR. A. GRANTsaid, as they were assured by the Home Secretary that not a single hair's breadth of the functions of the Lord Advocate would be touched by the Bill, he could only express his
  900
  wonder that the clause was put into the Bill at all. No doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with the views he had expressed, would be prepared to accept an Amendment, which was to be proposed by some other Member, for expunging the clause altogether. He, therefore, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. A. Grant). That hon. Member's Amendment not being accepted, and having no particular desire that it should be, he was glad to hear that the hon. Member agreed with himself in thinking that the whole clause should be omitted. He rose, therefore, to make the Motion of which he and several other Members had given Notice, the omission of the clause from the Bill; and he ventured to say he could show good cause why it should be so omitted. Qui s'excuse s'accuse. Nothing would prejudice or interfere with any rights, privileges, or duties attaching to the Office of Lord Advocate, such was the assurance of the Lord Advocate, and that was the belief of the Faculty of Advocates. There was also the assurance of the Home Secretary that there was nothing in the intention of the Bill to interfere with or prejudice the Office of Lord Advocate, or the rights and duties that had devolved upon it by Acts of Parliament or by custom. The Committee had had these assurances from those who introduced the Bill, and should understand its merits and intention. Why, then, should the Committee sanction the introduction of a clause to do that, or endeavour to do that, which they were assured would be carried out by the Act itself? Either it was a superfluous clause, or there was something in the Bill which the Committee had not seen which would interfere with the duties, the rights, or the privileges of the Lord Advocate. For these reasons, not wishing to detain the Committee longer at that hour of the morning, he moved the Amendment which stood in his name, and should certainly take a Division upon it.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the Clause.—(Sir John Hay.)
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he thought the very fact that the question had over and over again been raised and discussed was ample justification for the clause. What has passed had shown that there was in some minds a fear that the functions of the Office he had the honour to hold would be interfered with. An assurance to the contrary had been given; but was it not better to have that assurance in an explicit and authentic form in the Bill? If there was any doubt about the assurances given, this was the more authoritative way of removing the doubt. In addition to that, there must be understood to be this general reason—to prevent the possibility of misapprehension as to whether the transfer to the new Officer of duties under the Bill might or might not interfere with the specific statutory powers which, under some Acts of Parliament, the Lord Advocate possessed. There was a possibility of that, and it was better to have no doubt about it. He referred to the power of suing, for instance, and there were other powers which he need not go into, and which would be familiar to many hon. Members. It was best to make it clear that there was no such purpose as was apprehended by some; and the clause made it perfectly clear that any duties or powers now laid by statute on the Lord Advocate and inherent in his Office would remain intact. The criticisms which had been pressed to this clause might be applied with equal appropriateness to every saving clause.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, there was a large amount of Scotch patronage. With whom did it rest at the present moment?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: With a few exceptions with the Secretary of State.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he asked the question because he was informed that a Mr. F. Richardson was promoted to a clerkship in Edinburgh, at £600 or £700 a-year, over several seniors, and his sole recommendation seemed to be that he had acted for the Prime Minister in the management of the Mid Lothian campaign of 1880. Were the different appointments in the gift of the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State? He did not quite see whether in the clause the patronage of
  902
  the Lord Advocate was safeguarded; the wording of the clause did not say anything about patronage. If the clause was not rejected, would it not be better to insert "patronage," so that this might not lapse into the hands of the new Officer?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the whole of the patronage of Scotland was in the hands of the Secretary of State. That was a matter of elementary knowledge in Constitutional Scottish history. In these matters the Secretary of State almost always took the advice of the Lord Advocate; but the patronage was the patronage of the Secretary of State, for which he was responsible. His learned Friend told him that the Crown agents were appointed by the Lord Advocate; but they were agents and deputies of the Lord Advocate. As to the particular appointment to which the hon. Member referred, he was sorry to say he could not give any information.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he thought this was an important statement, and explained what he was looking for—that the whole of the patronage would be in the hands of the Minister of State, and in the Schedule would be transferred to the now Minister. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, some Sittings since, made some remarks about patronage, and he really began to think there was something in the view he took By the Acts quoted in the Schedule the Secretary of State had the power of appointing and removing all the officers of those large Boards in Scotland. This opened up quite a new view of the case.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, an answer was really required. There was no doubt that a great deal of the patronage would pass to the now Officer; but the Secretary of State said it was all vested in him.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said at present.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the question was asked, and the Committee were given to understand that all patronage would be vested in the Secretary of State; now it appeared that his portion would pass to someone else. It would be better to have it all explained; and as the point had been raised, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give an answer.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was a little hard that the right hon. Gentleman should go away during the Lest part of the discussion, and then complain of the want of explanation.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was present the whole time the Home Secretary was speaking.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there had been long discussions during which the right hon. Gentleman was absent. But, passing away from that, he was answering a question as to the existing state of things, whether the patronage was in the hands of the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate? No doubt the patronage which belonged to the Office under the Statutes which would be transferred would be in the hands of the new Officer. That was always intended to be done, and that would leave the legal patronage exactly where it was before, still remaining with the Secretary of State, acting on the advice of the Lord Advocate. The appointments to the Fishery and other Boards would be made by the new Official. From first to last this had always been stated; and it seemed to him an extraordinary thing that the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) had been trying to find out what had been said half-a-dozen times during the discussion. He would say, again, the patronage would go with the arrangement of the powers to be transferred to the new Official. What was not transferred would remain with the Secretary of State, and continue to be exercised by him as before.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should vote for expunging the clause, with the object of saving the dignity of the position of Lord Advocate. It seemed to him that under a good many Acts the Lord Advocate had acted as the subordinate to the Secretary of State, and when the transfer of duties to the new Officer took place the Lord Advocate would become his subordinate. To take an illustration—for some little time the Local Taxation Returns had been prepared in the Office of the Lord Advocate. If under the Bill the powers and duties of the Secretary of State in regard to these Taxation Returns were transferred to the new Officer, and as by custom, if not by law, the Lord Advocate had produced these Returns and submitted them
  904
  to the Secretary of State, the result would be that the Lord Advocate would become the subordinate of the new Officer. That, it seemed to him, would be bringing the Office of Lord Advocate into a humiliating position, and to relieve him from that the clause should be omitted.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, as to the appointment of Sheriffs, Procurators Fiscal, and other persons connected with the law, as to which at present the Lord Advocate gave advice, though the appointments were made by the Secretary of State, would that fall to the new Officer? [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No.] Then the Lord Advocate would continue to advise the Home Secretary in some matters, but not in others? The appointment of Lord High Commissioner, with whom would that be vested? [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Secretary of State.] When they came to the discussion of the 38 Acts mentioned in the Schedule they would learn more about it; but he anticipated that the discussion would occupy a considerable time.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, he entirely agreed with his right hon. and gallant Friend in his opposition to the Bill; but he must himself say he did not feel able to support the Amendment, and he would explain why. Yesterday, when the clause was arrived at, though not formally put, an opinion was expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the proposed Amendment was something quite unreasonable. The opponents of the Bill, he said, had dwelt strongly on the danger they saw in the Bill to the position of Lord Advocate; and here was a clause to protect the Office and position of Lord Advocate, and he seemed to think it was inconsistent on the part of opponents of the Bill to propose such an Amendment as the Committee were now considering. But from what he had heard from his right hon. and gallant Friend, and others who had put the Notices on the Paper, he understood the motive was not to indicate any disapproval of the intention expressed in the clause for the protection of the position of Lord Advocate, but that they considered it an altogether wrong and insufficient way of attaining that end, that the mere insertion of a clause of this kind was no protection whatever to the position of Lord Advocate. But,

  905
  in his opinion, the clause had a value. It was important to have in the Bill itself an expression of the good intentions of the Government with respect to the position and functions of the Lord Advocate. And he thought this was more than an expression of au intention. This clause, which had, of course, been in the Bill from the beginning, and therefore was put in in anticipation of the probable objection—this clause amounted to an admission that there was a necessity for providing a protection of the kind, an admission that there was something in the Bill which placed the position of Lord Advocate in some danger. He looked upon it as an admission that there was some force in the objection many had felt to the Bill, and on that account he should be glad to see the clause retained.
  MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, all the arguments that had been adduced in favour of omitting the clause went to prove the necessity of retaining it. He could not understand how a contrary impression could have been made on the mind of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). In his opinion, it simply illustrated the peculiar conformation of the hon. Member's mind.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he only wished to remark, in reference to what had fallen from the Home Secretary when he reproached his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) with being absent from the discussions, that the Home Secretary himself was by no means a regular attendant. Why had the Committee heard nothing of the patronage before? The Home Secretary seemed to have but a hazy idea of what was to be retained. This seemed to be a Bill for gathering into the hands of one Official the patronage of Scotland; and he had better be called at once the Patronage Secretary for Scotland, instead of the President of the Local Government Board for Scotland.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked who would be the Adviser of the Sovereign under the first Act mentioned in the Schedule?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, if among the duties of the Secretary of State which would be transferred to the new Officer was that of giving such advice, clearly it would devolve upon the new Officer.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, it was the first time the Committee had had that explanation.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would withdraw his Motion to omit the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, ha thought it was now time the Chairman reported Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Henry Fletcher.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed, because, if it were carried, it simply meant adding another day to the Session. The Bill having gone the length it had gone, the Government could not allow it simply to be worried to death. But it was for hon. Members themselves to judge whether they would not try to get on with the Bill. He knew that it was very late, and that the Government were asking great sacrifices of the House; but they would be obliged to ask a greater sacrifice if they did not get on, because they would have to ask the House to sit another day. He hoped hon. Members would accept the lesser evil of the two, and try to go on with the Bill.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Prime Minister, when he gave out the order of Business, said the Bill would certainly be taken that afternoon, but, if not finished, would be put down as the second Order for to-morrow at 2 o'clock, and that was a fair understanding. He thought it was most unreasonable that they should be asked to sit up till 5 o'clock in the morning. That was not the way to get through with the work.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in what he supposed the Prime Minister said. It could not be done. He had placed the alternative fairly before the Committee, to go on now, or add another day to the Session.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he thought it was rather unreasonable for the Home Secretary to talk in this way about the Bill being worried to death. There were English Members of the House who had taken no part in the discussion of this measure, preferring to leave it to Scotch Members, who, he was

  907
  bound to say, did not seem to care about the Bill. So far as he was concerned, be would rather add a day to the Session than have a Bill discussed in such a manner, and at such a time. It was clear that it was quite impossible to have a reasonable discussion of the Bill now. If a Scotch Member got up and asked a question, he was shouted at and "pooh pooh'd" from the Treasury Bench; there was not the semblance of a discussion. He had heard a good deal about the Bill, and had been present at most of the Sittings when it had been discussed; and, to his mind, nothing was clearer now than that they were going to create a Political Officer, who bad no defined functions, no staff, and no assistants.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member must speak on the Motion to report Progress.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he thought he was strictly in Order in stating his reasons for supporting the Motion, which were in connection with the structure and importance of the Bill. He hoped a Division would be taken on the Motion.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that no one was more strongly opposed than he was to legislating at that hour of the night (4 o'clock); but, at the same time, there was not much left to dispose of now, and he thought they might as well sit and finish the Bill. It was a very unusual thing for him to sit up so late at night; but there was only the Schedule left now to deal with, and be thought they might as well go on with it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause agreed to.

SCHEDULE.

  POWERS AND DUTIES OF SECRETARY OF STATE.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON SIR ALEXANDER GORDON moved that the words contained in the 4th line—"Poor Law, 8 & 9 Vict. o. 83"—be omitted. When Parliament was asked to make a great change they ought to have some reason afforded to them for making it. The Board of Supervision had been in existence for 38 years in Scotland, and every year it had gone on increasing in popularity and giving satisfaction. The Board now performed its duties to the entire satisfaction of the
  908
  country, and never a word was beard against it. But it was now proposed that this Board of Supervision should be itself supervised by the new Minister who was about to be appointed, and that was an interference with an efficient Board which was wholly unnecessary. He thought they had better leave the excellent arrangements as to Poor Law in Scotland to remain as they were at present in their entirety.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 4, to leave out the words "Poor Law, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 83."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he could not accept the Amendment. He did not cast any reflection on the Board of Supervision, or in the least degree differ from the high estimate which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had formed of that body; but as a new functionary was to be substituted for the Secretary of State for the performance of certain duties, it was necessary that those duties should be transferred to him. At present, the Board of Supervision reported regularly to the Home Secretary. In future, they would report to the President of the Scottish Local Government Board; and the sanction to the rules and regulations of the Board of Supervision would, of course, be given in future by the new President. He hoped this Amendment would not lead to any long discussion.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, be was quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR JOHN HAY SIR JOHN HAY moved that the words contained in the 12th line—"Marriage Notices, 41 & 42 Vict. c. 43"—be omitted from the Schedule. He himself had taken no part in the discussion as to who was to be the person who was to hold the new Office; but the noble Earl whose name had often been referred to (the Earl of Rosebery) was not likely, he understood, to be appointed as the first holder of the Office; and he understood that another noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie), who was an ornament to the Profession to which he (Sir John Hay) belonged, and who, he regretted,

  909
  was no longer a Member of that Profession, was likely to be the first holder. Now, though he had the greatest possible respect for that noble Earl, who, as a naval officer, had his esteem, he confessed that the noble Earl's peculiar views in reference to marriage were such that he (Sir John Hay) thought it impossible that the Marriage Laws of Scotland should be subject to his supervision, or they might all find themselves compelled to marry their deceased wives' sisters, whether their wives were deceased or not. If they were to back the bluejacket rather than the primrose-jacket for this particular Office, he thought it would be a serious matter, so far as the Marriage Laws were concerned.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, to leave out the words "Marriage Notices, 41 & 42 Vict. c. 43."—(Sir John Hay.)
  Amendment negatived.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) moved to leave out "cclxxi," in line 23, in order to insert "cclxxiii."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON SIR ALEXANDER GORDON moved to leave out the words contained in lines 27 and 28—"Food and Drugs, 38 & 39 Vict. c. 63; 42 & 43 Vict. c. 30." It was most important that what was done about adulteration should be done upon a uniform system; and the matter had no special relation to Scotland at all. The adulteration of food and drugs was a very important matter in Scotland as well as in England; and he found that one of these Acts—42 & 43 Vict.—began—
  "Whereas conflicting decisions have been given in England and Scotland with regard to the administration of the Food and Drugs Act."
  That showed how important it was, in the opinion of Parliament, that a uniform system should be adopted; and he thought it should be left, as now, within the control of the Secretary of State.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 27, to leave out the words "Food and Drugs, 38 & 39 Vict. c. 63, and 42 & 43 Vict. c. 30."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR JOHN HAYagreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these were lines which ought to be omitted. This was one of the matters which ought to remain in the Home Office.
  MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he thought the argument used by the Mover of the Amendment was not quite to the point. The Act recited began with the words—
  "Whereas conflicting judgments have been given in England and in Scotland;"
  but that meant not conflicts between the two countries, but in each.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he wished to give one word of explanation as to the nature of the function which was to be transferred, and which he thought was peculiarly fitted to be so transferred. One of the powers of the Secretary of State was to require local authorities to appoint an analyst. That was eminently a duty to be discharged by the new Official. Another matter dealt with was the appointment and removal of Inspectors subject to the Secretary of State. That was another matter which clearly appertained to local government.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, this was hardly a Bill for the appointment of Scottish Inspectors; but what would come of it evidently was that a number of local men should be going about influencing elections. It was plain what was the real object of the Government in the matter, and he hoped the Committee would divide on the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 16: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 296.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 29, after "74," insert "Section 72."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That 'Section 72' be there inserted."
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked whether Section 8 was not a very important one, which ought also to be included? It was the only one which gave the Secretary of State any duties.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he would see about it on the Report.
  MR. WARTONonly wished to ask the learned Lord Advocate one question. Did he intend to go upon the principle of in-

  911
  serting different sections from these different Acts?—because he (Mr. Warton) was inclined to prefer the insertion of whole Acts rather than parts of them. It would certainly be safer. He would have liked to have moved himself, with regard to the Burial Grounds Act, that Sections 5 and 71 should have been omitted; and, indeed, if the learned Lord Advocate intended to persevere with this plan of proceeding by sections, he (Mr. Warton) should certainly move, on Report, that in the case of the Act 18 & 19 Vict. c. 68, only Sections 25 and 26 should be inserted, as they were the only ones which it was important to have in.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is no Question before the Committee.
  MR. WARTON: I beg your pardon, Sir; there is.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No. The Question has been determined.
  MR. WARTON: I beg your pardon, Sir. I challenged you. I rise to Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order—Sir Alexander Gordon.
  MR. WARTON: I rise to Order, Sir. I say it with respect; but I distinctly challenged you before you put it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member may have challenged; but I decided the Question that the Ayes have it, not having heard him.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I heard the hon. and learned Member's challenge before you decided, Sir Arthur Otway.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement; but I decided before I heard his challenge.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I rise to Order. I heard him challenge before you decided, Sir.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have said that I accept his statement without any statement in confirmation, but that I decided before I heard his challenge; and the hon. Member for Portsmouth is not in a position to know whether I decided before I heard it. I alone know that.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, after line 29, in second column, insert "31 & 32 Vict. c. 130."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, it was very difficult to understand what was going on at the Table; indeed, it would be
  912
  right to ask that the Act which was being cut up and inserted in the Bill should be read out at the Table. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and other learned Members, might understand what was going on; but he (Sir John Hay) confessed that he did not. Here they were taking sections out of 38 different Acts of Parliament, and what was to become of the Bill afterwards he confessed he could not understand. Here they were, at 5 o'clock in the morning, taking bits out of Acts of Parliament, and putting them in anyhow; and then they were to pass the Bill, and send it to "another place," where, no doubt, it would be treated as it deserved. This was simply scrambling a Bill up to the last moment, and making it up of bits of Acts of all sorts. Nobody knew what all these Acts were; and he would undertake to say that there was not a Member present, learned or unlearned, who would know what it was that was being put into the Bill unless it should be read at the Table.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he thought he could explain the matter in a single sentence. There were five Artizans' Dwellings Acts. Only two had been included in the Bill, and it was thought it was desirable, to make it complete, that another should be put in.
  MR. WARTONsaid, the Home Secretary would, no doubt, remember how angry he was when he (Mr. Warton) talked the Bill out at a Morning Sitting on a previous occasion. He was endeavouring at the time to impress upon the House, and if possible upon the Liberal Party, that the Schedule was exceedingly badly drawn. His statements were received at the time with shouts of derision; but his view was now confirmed by the Lord Advocate.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he thought they ought to have the Bill read at the Table.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not think the hon. Member could seriously desire to treat any Bill in that way. Indeed, it would be impossible. Every Bill recited Acts of Parliament, and if it was to be said that the House were not to pass a Bill until every Act mentioned in it had been read at the Table, why that would not be discussing it ail. If there were any difficulty about this particular point, he could under-

  913
  stand further explanations being asked for; but the Lord Advocate had already explained the matter amply enough. The Amendment amply incorporated the powers of the Artizans Dwellings Act, which it transferred. One of the Acts was accidentally omitted, and now it was proposed to supply it.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, the explanation, simple as it was, seemed a very odd one. He supposed that somebody who was acquainted with Acts of Parliament drafted the Bill, and selected the two which were to be put into the Schedule. It was now thought fit to put in others which were not in in the first place. If the person who drafted the Bill intended to put in this Bill for Scotland all the Artizans Dwellings Acts, surely the book from which he took the one reference might have given him the other. It was such a singular way of doing business that an explanation ought to be forthcoming.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he could not help making another appeal to the Government. Was it really dignified to press on the Bill at such an hour? The Home Secretary said it was a common practice to refer to Acts in such a manner in a Bill; but was it a usual thing for the Government to put down Amendments of this kind, and ask the, Committee to discuss them at such an hour? Imagine the Home Secretary sitting on the Front Opposition Bench; would he allow a Bill to be carried in such a manner? It would not be tolerated. He (Mr. Talbot) had never obstructed this Bill; he was not in the habit of obstructing Bills; but it was rather hard for Members who only took part in Business with which they were acquainted to be kept sitting all night. It would be an additional ground for the House of Lords to throw out the Bill that it was forced through Committee I against numerous protests, at a time of the Session and at an hour in the morning I when it could not be adequately discussed. If a Motion to report Progress were moved be should certainly support it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the matter was entirely in the bands of the Committee. Hon. Members had said something about what the House of Lords was going to do. He had nothing to do with that. The House of Lords would take care of itself, and the House of Commons must take care of
  914
  itself. The business of the Government was to obtain the judgment of the House of Commons on the Bill, and that was what they intended to do; and in what manner that should be done must depend upon the House, and he hoped the minority would consent to accept the decision of the majority. As he had said before, the Government could not consent to postpone the Bill; he had said that over and over again. The question was whether, having got to the Schedule, would the Committee conclude, or would they add another day to the Session, when the House of Lords would want another day added to that? This was the alternative. What hon. Members opposite wished was that the Government should drop the Bill; but this the Government did not intend to do. Would the Committee like to go on and finish the Schedule, or would they like to carry over the Session into another week?
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he merely wished to remark, in reference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observation that "another place" would take care of itself and the House of Commons would take care of itself, that the House of Commons was not taking care of the legislation of the country in hurrying through a Bill obviously so imperfect that at the last moment the Lord Advocate put down nearly a whole page of Amendments to be inserted. The insertion of these might be an improvement of the Bill; the Bill required improvement; but certainly, as the Home Secretary said, the House of Commons could take care of itself; but he was sorry to say they were not taking care of the legislation of the country.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLremarked, that they had discussed this Bill as exhaustively as any Bill that was ever discussed in the House of Commons.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, after line 31, in second column, insert "42 and 43 Vict. c. 64."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 32, leave out "7," and insert "6."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. WARTONsaid, it was quite possible for a careless draftsman of a

  915
  Bill to forget three out of five Acts; but when it came to the insertion of a wrong chapter it showed the danger of proceeding with this frightful haste. As an alternative, he would rather add another day to the Session, and have the work done well.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, after line 32, in second column, insert "45 and 46 Vict. c. 54."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he wished to omit the reference to the Alkali Act. This was another question that had nothing particularly to do with Scotland; and it was very important that the inspection, and all the regulations, should be on an uniform system, not depending on the various opinions of those who administered the Act. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson) had put down a Notice, and intended to show how it would affect the English manufacturer. He had withdrawn that Notice; but he had told him (Sir Alexander Gordon) that he attached great importance to the Alkali Act being struck out, so that manufacturers should be under an uniform system. It would be found, on looking at the Alkali Act, that the Secretary of State had only an initial duty; and he believed he had never exercised it once during the whole time the Act had been in force.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 33, to leave out "Alkali, 44 and 45 Vict. c. 37."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson) had withdrawn his Notice; and other hon. Members, he believed, were contented, so he did not think it could be said there was any real opposition to this proposal. There was no reason why the Alkali Act should not be brought under the cognizance of the Local Government Board in Scotland, just as it was under the Local Government Board in England.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, so far from the hon. Member for South Shields having withdrawn his opposition he had telegraphed from Scotland, begging him to urge the omission of the Act.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, lines 36, 37, and 38, to leave out the words "Industrial Schools, 29 & 30 Vict, c. 118; 35 & 36 Vict. c. 62; Reformatories, 29 & 30 Vict. c. 117."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he hoped the Lord Advocate would say a word as to the import of this Amendment. He could not quite see why the omission was proposed.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the truth was that the reformatories and industrial schools, though called schools, were really prisons, and children were committed there as to prison. There were no means of getting children out of industrial schools; that could only be done by the Secretary of State, as in the case of an adult prisoner. It was in consequence of that, and for the protection of industrial schools, that the Lord Advocate had thought it was not possible to make this transfer to the new Officer.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, then he found that prisons were transferred to the new Officer.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there was not the same objection. The management of prisons did not deal with the release of prisoners.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought, in accepting this Amendment, it would be acknowledged that the point which the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple) and himself urged strongly on the second reading was just.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WARTONsaid, having now got to the bottom of the first page of the Schedule, he would like to call attention to the phraseology—
  "And any Acts amending the said Acts, and conferring powers on the said Secretary of State."
  That rather pointed to the idea of the first Act granting the power; but the Lord Advocate would see there was a

  917
  prospect of an Act amending an Act which took away power from the Secretary of State. Would it not be better to add—
  "Or any Act amending an Act which takes away power from the Secretary of State;"
  for if it was necessary that the amended Act should confer power the Bill might destroy power already given. There might be an amending Act which, for the first time, granted the power.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he would consider this against the Report stage.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the Lord Advocate had adopted his Amendment to a great extent; but he must just object that it struck out the whole of the rest of the Public Health Act of Scotland. Now, if there was any Act that should be included under the supervision of the new Officer it ought to be this.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is abolished, and we now deal with Part III.
  SIR. ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, his Amendment was not necessarily that.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he could give an explanation. It would be observed that this Part related to the powers and duties of the Privy Council alone, and the powers of the Privy Council, in respect to the matter, would be brought in in Part III.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, if the Act were struck out of the Schedule it would not be in the Bill at all; and, therefore, the new Minister would not be able to exercise any of the powers. As the Act now stood, the Public Health Act of Scotland would not be under the supervision of the new Officer, and he did not think that was the intention of the Government.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 3, after "101," to insert "Part III."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WARTONsaid, after line 4 he would move the same words as in line 26 of page 3, in reference to burial grounds. He had mentioned the point before; and if the 5th section was referred to it would be seen that a duty was imposed both on the Secretary of State and on the Privy Council. The Lord Advocate would see the force of this. According to his construction of the section there
  918
  was a duty imposed on both. He would only read a very short part of the section—
  "It shall he lawful for Her Majesty from time to time, by Order in Council, on the representation of the Secretary of State;"
  and then it went on to state what should be done. Now, these two duties were provided for on page 3, and the principal duty was imposed on the Privy Council to order something to be done, that something being the closing of burial grounds. Not only did the Amendment adopt the words, but it came very naturally under the question of public health.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, after line 4, insert "burial grounds, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 68."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he explained yesterday that the Secretary of State had the power to set in motion, or make representations to the Privy Council, and it was proposed to transfer that power to the new Officer; but he would like to consider this point, and he would do so on Report.
  MR. WARTONsaid, there was a precedent in the Bill for the introduction of an Act in two places if the learned Lord Advocate would look at the Alkali Act.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, it appeared to him that if there was any Act the new Minister ought to have under his control it was that which had reference to common lodging-houses, and other matters relating to local government. Did not the Lord Advocate wish to include this?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, yes; he wished to consider whether it should be put in the first Schedule as well as the second.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, after line 43, insert—"Wild Birds Protection, 43 and 44 Vict. c. 35, 44 and 45 Vict. c. 51; Anatomy, 2 and 3 Will. IV., c. 75, 34 and 35 Vict. c. 16."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WARTONwished to call the attention of the Lord Advocate to the

  919
  effect of the insertion of the words in this place. The effect would be that no power of any Act amending these Acts would have effect. But he presumed the Lord Advocate wished to include such? The Amendment ought to come in earlier, unless for some mysterious reason these amending Acts were to be
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, it was true the Amendment should come in on page 3.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTexpressed a hope that the Bill would be re-printed with the Amendments, if only as a matter of decency and regularity in their proceedings.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, there had been no considerable alterations made in it—only one or two of an unimportant character.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that after they had discussed five pages of Amendments and six clauses there must have been some changes made in the Bill. He thought it ought to be re-printed, or they could not consider it properly on Report. [The LORD ADVOCATE dissented.] He observed his learned Friend the Lord Advocate shake his head; and as the learned Lord still possessed the dignity of Lord Advocate, he (Sir John Hay) would respect that shake, with all that it contained. But he did not think it possible that the Bill could be considered to-morrow on Report without being re-printed. They could not discuss it properly unless they knew what it contained.
  MR. WARTONsaid, there had been two changes in the Bill, nine in the Schedule, and one in the Preamble, making 12 in all.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was unusual to re-print a Bill of this kind at so late a period of the Session.

POST OFFICE (PROTECTION) BILL.
(Mr. Fawcett, Mr. Courtney.)
POST OFFICE (PROTECTION) BILL.

  [BILL 266.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. WARTONobjected to the Bill being taken at so late an hour (5 o'clock).
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was not usual to object, as the Committee was only to be taken pro formâ. The block against the Bill would still remain afterwards.
  MR. WARTONsaid this was a great deal more than a pro formâ stage, for some very important provisions were to be introduced—one especially dealing with forged telegrams.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  On the Motion of Mr. FAWCETT, the following new Clauses were inserted:—Page 1, after Clause 1, insert the following Clause:—
  "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."
  Page 4, after Clause 9, insert the following Clause:—
  (Forgery of telegrams.)
  "Every person who forges or wilfully and without due authority alters a telegram or utters a telegram knowing the same to be forged, or wilfully and without due authority altered, or who transmits by telegraph as a telegram, or utters as a telegram, any message or communication which he knows not to be a telegram, shall, whether he had or had not an intent to defraud, be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, and, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding twelve months.
  "For the purposes of this section the expression 'telegram' means a written or printed message or communication sent to or delivered at a Post Office, or the office of a Telegraph Company, for transmission by telegraph, or delivered by the Post Office or a Telegraph Company as a message or communication transmitted by telegraph.
  "The expression 'Telegraph Company' means any Company or persons working any telegraph.
  "The expression 'telegraph' has the same meaning as in 'The Telegraph Act, 1869,' and the Acts amending the same."
  Page 6, after Clause 12, insert the following Clause:—
  (Execution of instruments of the Postmaster General in substitution for s. 7 of 44 and 45 Vic. c. 20.)
  "Any instrument requiring to be executed by the Postmaster General, or to which he is a party, may be executed by any of the secretaries or assistant secretaries of the Post Office in the name of the Postmaster General, and,

  921
  if so executed, shall be deemed to have been executed by the Postmaster General, and shall have effect accordingly.
  "Any instrument purporting to he executed by any of the secretaries or assistant secretaries of the Post Office in the name of the Postmaster General shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been so executed without proof of the official character of the person appearing to have executed the same."
  Page 6, after Clause 13, insert the following:—
  (Substitution of 32 and 33 Vic c. 18, s. 1, for repealed section 33 of 31 and 32 Vic. c, 119, in the Telegraph Act, 1878.)
  "Whereas, by sections four and five of 'The Telegraph Act, 1878,' section thirty-three of 'The Regulation of Railways Act, 1868,' is, together with other sections of that Act, applied to the differences therein mentioned:
  (32 and 33 Vic. c.18.)
  "And whereas the said section thirty-three was repealed, and another section in lieu thereof enacted by 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1869,' and it is expedient to substitute a reference to the last-mentioned section for the reference to the repealed section: Be it therefore enacted as follows:—
  (41 and 42 Vic. c. 76, 31 and 32 Vic. c. 119, 32 and 33 Vie. c. 18.)
  "Any reference in 'The Telegraph Act, 1878,' to section thirty-three of 'The Regulation of Railways Act, 1868,' shall he construed to refer to section one of 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1869.'"
  Schedule, page 9, line 55, column 3, before "section 11," insert "section seven and."
  Bill reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 298]; re-committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

STATUTE LAW REVISION AND CIVIL PROCEDURE BILL. [Lords.] [BILL 290.]
(Mr. Attorney General.)
STATUTE LAW REVISION AND CIVIL PROCEDURE BILL. [Lords.] [BILL 290.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEasked whether it was to be read a second time without a single word of explanation?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sure his hon. and learned Friend had read the Bill, which was only rendered necessary in consequence of other Acts being passed to alter certain forms. It was a usual annual Bill.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

TRIAL OF LUNATICS BILL. [Lords.]
(Mr. Attorney General.)
TRIAL OF LUNATICS BILL. [Lords.]

  [BILL 292.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, this was surely not a measure of the same class as the one which had just been read a second time.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was not; but it had been thought advisable that some change should be made in the law with respect to the conviction of lunatics. As the law stood at present, lunatics charged with crime were found not guilty on the ground of insanity; and it had been wisely thought that people who were only partially mad at the time they found the resolution to commit a crime would be more deterred from so doing if the verdict was one of guilty of committing the act charged. The result would be entirely the same after the verdict had been taken; because insane prisoners would be detained at the pleasure of the Crown, as now. It had been thought better that this alteration of the law should be made, and there was no reason against it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

MEDALS BILL.— [BILL 188.]
(Mr. Courtney, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MEDALS BILL.— [BILL 188.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 13th August.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. WARTON MR. WARTON moved that Progress be reported, as two hon. Members who had placed Amendments on the Paper were not there, and could not be expected to be there at that hour of the morning.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the Bill could be disposed of in less than three minutes.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he would not press his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 (Short title of Act).
  MR. WARTON (for Mr. COCHRAN-PATRICK)MR. WARTON (for Mr. COCHRAN-PATRICK) moved to insert the word "counterfeit" before "Medal," in page 1, line 5. It seemed to be the impression of the Government that there could be no such thing as a duplicate medal. There were medals given as rewards in schools; some of a more honourable description were medals won on the field of battle in open war or in military operations, as the case might be. But there was a difference between genuine duplicate medals and counterfeit medals.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 5, before the word "Medal," to insert the word "counterfeit."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Punishment for selling medals resembling current coin).
  MR. WARTON (for Mr. COCHRAN-PATRICK)MR. WARTON (for Mr. COCHRAN-PATRICK) moved the insertion of the words "with intention to defraud," after the word "sells," in page 1, line 10. There might be medals which were properly sold. They all knew that there were large collections of very great interest which might properly be sold, and the element of evil intention should come into play to constitute crime. There was no crime without evil intention.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after the word "sells," to insert the words "with intention to defraud."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the proposal now made would destroy the value of the Bill. The Bill was framed on an analogy with the law, which made it not only a misdemeanour, but an actual felony, to possess paper capable of being used as Bank of England paper. It was not necessary to prove the intention to defraud.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Interpretation).
  MR. COURTNEY MR. COURTNEY moved to insert the words "or for," after "in," in page 1, line 25.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Resolutions [August 13] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Mr. TREVELYAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 295.]

MOTIONS.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH CONSTABLES) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF moved for leave to bring in a Bill to explain the effect of section one hundred and ninety-five of "The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882." He said, it was merely to make a small alteration, as some doubt had arisen as to whether municipal magistrates could sentence to fine and imprisonment for making assaults upon the police.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to explain the effect of section one hundred and ninety-five of "The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882," ordered to be brought in by Sir H. DRUMHOND WOLFF, Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Mr. DODDS, and Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 296.]

    SOLDIERS PENSIONS AND YEOMANRY PAY BILL.
    On Motion of The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Bill to make provision with regard to the granting of Pensions and Allowances to Disabled, Invalid, and Discharged Soldiers, and with regard to the granting of Pay, Pensions, and Allowances to the Yeomanry, ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON and Sir ARTHUR HAYTER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 297.]

    EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
    Ordered, That the several Accounts and Papers which have been presented to the House in this Session of Parliament be referred to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House.—(Mr. J. K. Cross.)
    Committee thereupon upon Monday next.

PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Arthur Hayter.)
SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked whether the Army Estimates would be taken at the Evening: Sitting on Friday?
SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: If we come to the Army Estimates we shall be obliged to take them; but I think it is hardly probable. If not, we should take them on Saturday.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half after Five o'clock in the morning.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bankruptcy* (195); National Debt* (196); Expiring Laws Continuance* (197); Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections)* (198); Education (Scotland)* (199).
Second Reading—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) (189); Cholera Hospitals (Ireland)* (193).
Committee—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1)* (157); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6)* (159); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7)* (160); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5)* (173); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8)* (174); Patents for Inventions (recomm.)* (188–201).
Report—Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) (190–200); Friendly, &c. Societies (Nominations)* (166), now Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies.
Tird Reading—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (151); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3)* (152); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4)* (158); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9)* (101); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 10)* (162); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 11)* (163); Public Health Act, 1875 (Support of Sewers) Amendment* (172); Agricultural Holdings (England) (192); Diseases Prevention (Metropolis)* (181), and passed.

MILFORD DOCKS BILL.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in moving that the Bill be re-committed to the same Committee, said, that some four or five days ago he presented a Petition against the third reading of the Bill upon representations of so strong a nature against the Company that it seemed to him every one of them ought to be investigated. Some allegations had certainly been borne out; and, although all the statements were made ex parte, they were made with the positive assurance that every one could be substantiated.
Moved, "That the Bill be re-committed to the same Committee."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES)said, that ample inquiry had been made into the truth of the allegations, and the only person who could have raised any objection in the matter was the contractor, who had since become a bankrupt. He did not think it was proper at this period of the Session that the Bill should be re-committed.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 190.)
(The Lord President.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 190.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  Clause 2 (Restrictions as to improvements before Act).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 10, after ("improvement") at end of clause, add ("but under deduction of the value of any manure stipulated for under the lease.")—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (Lord PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he thought the words in the clause were amply suffi-

  685
  cient, and that nothing would be gained by the change.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHremarked, that those who would suffer would not be the landlords.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Notice to landlord as to improvements in second part of Schedule).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsuggested that, instead of fixing the rate of interest at 4 per cent to be paid by a tenant for improvement executed by his landlord, they should substitute the words—
  "At the rate per cent at which the money could he borrowed from a land improvement company in the same period."
  The object of this proposal was that the landlord might not lose by the transaction, as in many cases the improvements on which interest at the rate of 4 per cent would be paid might yield to the tenant from 14 to 30 per cent. Under those circumstances, it would be very hard that the landlord should be losing on the transaction all the time the tenant was gaining upon it. He threw the suggestion out for consideration on the third reading.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONhad no objection to the proposal, as his sole desire was that the landlord should not have to pay more for the loan of money than he would be allowed by the tenant.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he agreed with the justice of the proposal, but under it a tenant might have to pay occasionally as much as 6½ and even 8 per cent.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL) moved the following Proviso from the English Bill:—
  "The landlord and tenant may, if they think fit, dispense with any notice under this section, and come to an agreement between themselves, in the same manner and of the same validity as if such notice had been given."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsuggested that the words "the landlord and tenant may, in terms of the lease, or otherwise," should be added; but he would not press that at the present stage.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHrose to move an Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the time had gone past for moving that Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he must protest against the irregular manner in which Business was carried on in the House. The sort of conversation which went on in conducting a Bill of this kind made it impossible for anyone to know what was taking place. There were great complaints about the bad acoustics of the building; but it was more the fault of the Members themselves than the construction of the building that no one could hear.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Reservation as to existing and future leases).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he rose to call attention to the last sub section of Clause 5——
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYrose to a point of Order, and remarked that it had been stated by the Lord Chancellor that they had got to Clause 6 of the Bill. ["No, no!"] Noble Lords might not have heard it, but he certainly was led to understand that they had reached Clause 6. The noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) had been prevented from putting his Amendment upon Clause 4, because the conversation going on in the House had prevented his hearing that Clause 5 had been announced by the Lord Chancellor as being discussed. For his (the Earl of Galloway's) part, he had no objection to either clause being discussed; but if the noble Duke was ruled out of Order in discussing Clause 4, because Clause 5 was under discussion, similarly, the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) was out of Order in discussing Clause 5 when Clause 6 was under discussion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained that Clause 6 was mentioned by himself in consequence of seeing a Notice upon the Paper in reference to it, but nothing had been moved upon it; therefore, the noble Lord was perfectly in Order in referring to Clause 5.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he wished to ask what was the meaning of the following sub-section of Clause 5:—
  "The last preceding provision of this section relating to a particular agreement shall apply in the case of a tenancy under a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this

  687
  Act, in respect of an improvement specified in the third part of the Schedule hereto, specific compensation for which is not provided by any agreement in writing or custom."
  He had appealed to persons accustomed to drafting Bills for an explanation, but they seemed as ignorant as him-self?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (Lord PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the case stood in this way. The second paragraph of the clause provided for agreements for fair and reasonable compensation, but it only gave that power in the case of tenancies beginning after the commencement of this Act. Therefore, if the clause ended there, there would have been no means for landlords and tenants to enter into fair and reasonable agreements during the currency of an existing lease. The new paragraph had nothing to do with existing agreements and customs, such as were referred to in the first paragraph of the clause; it related entirely to the future. It was to enable agreements to be made during the currency of a lease existing at the commencement of the Act that the paragraph was inserted, and if the noble Lord studied the matter he would find that it was quite necessary, for the reason he had stated.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he did not believe that the clause as it originally stood precluded landlords and tenants from entering into these agreements.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Set off of benefit to tenant).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 4, line 31, at end of clause, add—"Nothing in this section or in any other section of this Act shall enable a tenant to obtain compensation under this Act in respect of any boning, claying, liming, or marling of land executed more than seven years before the determination of the tenancy, or in respect of any purchased artificial or other purchased manure applied, or any cake or other feeding stuff consumed on the holding more than three years before the determination of the tenancy."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  After a pause,
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONasked whether the Lord President of the Council had not a word to say on that Amendment?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (Lord PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)replied, that the noble Lord on the Cross Bench had not
  688
  said a word in support of his own Amendment, and therefore he had not felt himself called upon to answer him. To all their Lordships except the noble Lord himself he thought it must seem impossible for anyone who had accepted the second reading of the Bill to accept his words, which would substitute for the provisions of the Bill a system of artificial periods of compensation and of exhaustion of the improvements. The Amendment proposed that the periods should be seven years in certain cases, and three years in others. That was, of course, absolutely opposed to the principle upon which the Bill was drawn; and, with respect to the three years, it was, he thought, even opposed to the Act of 1875.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 17 (Reference to and award by oversman).
  On the Motion of The Lord PRESIDENT an Amendment made by inserting page in 7, at end of Clause, the following new paragraph:—
  "In any case provided for by sections three, four, or five, if compensation is claimed under this Act, such compensation, as under any of those sections is to be deemed to be substituted for compensation under this Act, if and so far as the same can under the terms of the agreement, if any, be ascertained by the referees or the oversman, shall be awarded in respect of any improvements thereby provided for, and the award shall, when necessary, distinguish such improvements, and the amount awarded in respect thereof, and an award given under this Clause shall be subject to the appeal provided by this Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (What notice to be given of termination of tenancy).
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he proposed to amend the clause, by providing that the section should not apply to leases current at the commencement of this Act which had less than five, instead of two, years to run.
  Amendment moved, in page 11, line 27, leave out ("two") and insert ("five.")—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the Government could not agree to that Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Commencement of Act).
  LORD LOVATsaid, that, on behalf of his noble Friend (the Earl of Stair), he would propose that the Act should come into operation at the term of Whitsuntide instead of on the 1st of January.
  Amendment moved, in page 13, line 24, after ("on") leave out ("the first day of January") and insert ("the term of Whitsuntide.")—(The Lord Lovat.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he thought it would not be well to defer the operation of the Act until Whitsuntide without some very good reason for it. For his part, he could not see what advantage there would be in the change, and what the risks were that were supposed to attend the earlier operation of the Bill. With respect to the improvements in Part I., they could not be affected by it in any way; and, with respect to drainage works, the noble Lord would see that no tenant, as the Bill stood, could do that which he seemed to be so much afraid of—that no drainage could be begun until the 1st of next March, as two months' notice, beginning after the 1st of January, of an intention to drain a field had to be given to the landlord. By an alteration that had been made in the Bill no tenant could begin to manure, or lime, or do anything of that kind without first giving six months' notice; therefore, he could not see that anything would be gained by deferring the commencement of the Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought there was a serious difficulty in the way in consequence of the earlier period in Clause 5. In the 2nd subsection they would observe that the Act enacted that in all cases in reference to tenancies at will, which were called tenancies under lease in Scotland, when a new tenancy commenced at the first period at which notice could be given to terminate the tenancy at will—that was to say, the first period after the commencement of the Act—in order to get their agreement into operation, so that they should be capable of substituting it for the Act, they must have made with every one of their tenants a new agreement, and they would have to do that by Ladyday or Candlemas, or whatever was the day at which the tenancy ceased.
  690
  That was rather a severe requirement, and the end of it would be that in order to save himself the landlord would give notice to quit, in order to prevent being left altogether without the substitution of his own agreement for the compensation he was called upon to pay.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 35 (Application of Act).
  LORD LOVATsaid, he would propose that the Act should apply to a holding of less than two acres in extent if it was of the value of £2. In the Highlands small holdings were often given by way of charity, and it was not proposed that such holdings should come under the operation of the Act. If the clause remained as at present, small holdings in the Highlands might mean nothing, because the holding might consist of bare rock; but if it was made £2, that would mean something.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that as he had not agreed to the limit of two acres, he could not agree to the present proposal; but if the noble Lord considered it absolutely necessary, he hoped he would raise the point on the third reading.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 86 (Avoidance of agreement inconsistent with Act).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 13, line 39, at end of clause, add—"Provided that nothing in this Act shall make it illegal for a landlord and tenant to agree in writing that the purchased artificial or other purchased manures, in respect of which a claim for compensation may he made under this Act, shall be limited to the manures specified in such writing; and if the landlord and tenant so agree, no claim shall be competent to the tenant under this Act in respect of the application to the holding of any such manure not specified in such writing."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, as the noble Earl had given no reasons for the Amendment, his own reasons why he could not accept it would be very brief. This was one of those precautions against an infinitesimal and unlikely

  691
  danger, which he thought they would be very ill-advised if they introduced it into the Bill. It was quite possible that an unenlightened owner of land might use such a general power as this in a very mischievous way. He might force his tenant to consent to an agreement which would exclude him from the purchase of all manures except one. He might have a great dislike to the purchase of manures, and a still greater dislike to put his hand into his pocket to give compensation. The best security against the use of injurious manures was the tenant's own interest.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 200.)

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.—(No. 192.)
(The Lord President.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.—(No. 192.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  The Queen's consent and the consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in right of his Duchy of Cornwall, signified.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord President.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he begged to present four Petitions against the Bill, one of them being from the Manchester and Salford Householders' Association, in which the Petitioners said—
  "They could not help feeling that the principle involved in the Bill was one which, if admitted in the case of agriculture, would lead to similar interference in other branches of trade and commerce. They therefore submitted that, for the great principle of freedom of contract, the substitution of State regulation could not be regarded as in any way advantageous to the country at large."
  He would, therefore, as a matter of form, and also of principle, move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he wished to take that, the last opportunity, of entering his protest against the Bill
  692
  as it stood, and he did so on the ground that it was unnecessary, since all that was just and fair in it, as between landlord and tenant, was in practice. Another grave objection was the unnecessary late period of the Session at which it had been introduced, thus preventing the Bill being adequately discussed. His fear was that the word "improvements" in it would lead to almost endless litigation, unless it were qualified by the word "efficient;" further definition being required in this particular, together with other portions of the Bill. He further deprecated hasty legislation on this, in common with other subjects, at the end of a Session. As in the case of the Irish Land Bill, it would greatly injure small proprietors, whom those holding extreme opinions on all political subjects professed their desire to see increased; and in respect to the smaller tenants, they would ultimately be entirely swept away as regarded this country, although this class of tenants, under the Irish Land Bill, had acquired rights that were not contemplated by Parliament. And with legislation thus hastily passed for Party purposes, there was no assurance that such a measure as the Bill before the House would not very shortly be followed by another measure of a similar kind.
  On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion?" Resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments.
  Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(The Lord President.)
  Clause 4 (Notice to landlord as to improvement in second part of schedule).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLbegged to move an Amendment on the last subsection of the clause giving landlords and tenants, if they thought fit, "in a lease or otherwise," to dispense with any notice under the section the right to come to an agreement between themselves, in the same manner and of the same validity as if such notice had been given, his Amendment being confined to the introduction of the words "in a lease or otherwise." He considered this a very important Proviso. The healthy system of leases was already beginning to be undermined. Some tenants were unwilling to be bound by long leases; and he had heard of a large estate in

  693
  the South-West of Scotland where the 19 years' system had been abandoned, and yearly tenancies adopted.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 5, after ("agreement") to insert ("in a lease or otherwise.)"—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he doubted whether the words would not be open to misconstruction, though he quite agreed in the object of the noble Duke.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he doubted the necessity of these additional words; but he thought them quite right, and would accept the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he considered that a very important concession.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Incidence of charge).
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL) moved to add the following as a separate paragraph at the end of the clause:—
  "Capital money arising under the Settled Land Act, 1882, may be applied in payment of any costs incurred by a landlord under or in pursuance of this Act in or about the execution of any improvement mentioned, in the first or second parts of the schedule hereto, as for an improvement authorised by the said Settled Land Act, and such money may also be applied in discharge of any charge created on a holding under or in pursuance of this Act, in respect of any such improvement as aforesaid, as in discharge of an in cumbrance authorised by the said Settled Land Act to be discharged out of such capital money."
  Those words were for the purpose of carrying out a suggestion made by a noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon). The effect was simply this. Under the Settled Land Act, 1882, there was a long list of improvements capable of being executed by the landlord under the control of the Court, by means of what the Act called the capital trust money of the estate; but in that list of improvements there were two in Part I. of the Schedule of this Bill which were not included. The one was the formation of silos—a new thing—and the other was the laying down of permanent pasture. The object of the Amendment was to add those two to the improvements in the Settled Land Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 54 (Commencement of Act).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYproposed an Amendment by which the 31st of March, 1884, should be substituted for the 31st of January, 1884, as the date at which the Act should come into force. The Bill had come upon the landed interest with great surprise. He said, in the presence of many of them, that they were not a race whose actions were hasty or precipitate, and it was cruel to them to force them to bring into operation a totally new system of law, for which no previous discussion had prepared them, at so very short notice as the 1st of January next. It should be remembered that the interval was only four months, during two of which they could get the assistance of no lawyer and solicitor, and, therefore, all the work must be confined to two months at the end of the autumn. He thought they ought to have a longer time.
  Amendment moved, in page 20, line 3, to leave out ("first day of January") and insert ("thirty-first day of March.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that if that Amendment were adopted, the consequence would be that no notice could be given in the case of Lady Day tenancies until the following Lady Day; and the result would be to delay the operation of the Act in those cases for a whole year.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?" Their Lordships divided:—Contents 22; Not-Contents 31: Majority 9.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Carlingford, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Granville, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Morley, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Sydney, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Reay, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Nor-manton.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Thurlow, L.

  Bramwell, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Richmond, D.

  Winchester, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Clonmell, E.

  695

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Ellenborough, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Haldon, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]

  Fortescue, E.

  Milltown, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Redesdale, E.

  Lamington, L.

  Melville, V.

  Lovat, L.

  Norton, L.

  Ardilaun, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Bateman, L. [Teller.]

  Denman, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  Words substituted accordingly.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  PROTEST

    AGAINST THE PASSING OF THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.
    "DISSENTIENT:
    "1. Because no man in this country occupies and cultivates the land of another, except by his own free will and upon terms which he has voluntarily accepted.
    "2. Because it is a sound principle in Legislation that men should be permitted to contract freely with one another in the management of their affairs.
    "3. Because no exceptional reason exists in the case of landlords and tenants for departing from the above sound principle; inasmuch as tenants are for the most part grown up men, as well or better capable than most other classes of securing their own interest by bargain; and, moreover, under existing circumstances, able almost to dictate their own terms. Their case is thus distinguished from those in which the Legislature has hitherto interfered with free contract for the protection of women, children, and lunatics, or of life, limb, or health.
    "4. Because there is no distinction in principle between the business of cultivating land and that of any other great industry—the community in all instances alike is interested in a successful result; but experience has shown that success is most surely brought about by the unfettered enterprise of individuals under the steady stimulus of private gain.
    "5. Because between two persons who have entered into a contract as landlord and tenant for the occupation of land, there is no natural, or other, right whatever in respect of such occupation, except that which is expressed or implied by the contract itself; and if a tenant who has made improvements beyond those provided for therein is entitled to compensation, the landlord who has done the same thing is equally entitled to an increase of rent, in defiance, in both instances, of the bargain they have mutually made.
    "6. Because the Bill will give direct legislative encouragement to dishonesty, even when
    696
    premeditated, since it will enable a man to obtain advantages by signing an agreement, and after having enjoyed them to repudiate it to the detriment of the other party.
    "7. Because, while the relations of landlord and tenant have hitherto been generally maintained on a friendly footing, those between capital and labour are with difficulty adjusted, and are the cause of ceaseless disputes; and if the principle of free contract is recklessly abandoned in the one case, it will be found difficult to maintain it in the other, when a claim is urged that the rate of wages should be settled by law.
    "8. Because the wanton abandonment of the above sound principle to favour one class cannot fail to induce other classes to demand similar Legislative interference in their behalf, and will tend to generate Political combinations for the attainment of private ends, in place of the common weal.
    "9. Because legislation of this kind lies outside the proper province of Parliament, which cannot by any expenditure of time and trouble satisfactorily adjust the varied and constantly varying detailed requirements of special industries.
    "10. Because, finally, legislation of this description is not new, but was freely tried in the days of the Plantagenet Kings, and failed; while in modern times it has been, until quite recently, condemned alike by Political economists and statesmen of all Parties.
    "PENZANCE.
    "BRAMWELL.
    "REDESDALE.
    "FORTESCUE.
    "WEMYSS."

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL—(No. 189.)
  (The Earl of Northbrook.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL—(No. 189.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the General Election of 1880 had shown that, notwithstanding the introduction of the Ballot, and the legislation which had taken place to prevent them, corrupt practices had increased. This had been proved by the Reports of the Election Courts, and of the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into the elections for certain boroughs in which it was reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed. Though the actual sums given by way of bribery had been smaller than formerly, it appeared, from the evidence, that a larger number of people were bribed, and that bribery was carried on by persons of higher

    697
    position than formerly—as, for instance, town councillors, solicitors, and others, who ought not to have been mixed up in such practices; and the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had, on more than one occasion, to perform the painful duty of removing from the Bench magistrates who had been reported to be guilty of those practices. Not only could it be said that corrupt practices had increased, but the expenditure incurred at the last Election was excessive. The expenditure was not only detrimental to the public interest by deterring persons who would have been excellent representatives of constituencies in the House of Commons from standing for election, but also had the effect of accustoming those engaged in elections to consider that an election was simply an affair of money, and of thus leading to corrupt practices. He might say, without the expectation of being contradicted, that such a state of things was a scandal to the nation, required to be grappled with, and that it was necessary some stronger remedy should be applied. It was, then, for that purpose that the present Bill had been introduced in and passed by the other House. He would shortly state the principal provisions of the Bill. The term "corrupt practice" was well known and defined by the existing law—important changes in respect to the definition and punishment of corrupt practices were proposed in the Bill. There was, in the 1st clause, a provision making treating an offence when committed by other persons than the candidates; and in Clause 2 there was a new definition of "undue influence." The Bill increased considerably the penalties for corrupt practices; the disabilities to which candidates were now subject when reported to the House as guilty of corrupt practices were increased. If a candidate was reported by the Election Court to have been guilty of bribery by or with his knowledge or consent, he was, by the existing law, excluded from sitting in Parliament for seven years; and if reported by the Court to have been guilty through his agent of corrupt practices, he was excluded from sitting for the particular constituency to the end of the Parliament. By the Bill, a candidate for a constituency reported to be personally guilty of treating, or undue influence, or of any cor-
    698
    rupt practice by and with his knowledge and consent would not only be excluded from sitting in Parliament for seven years, but for the same constituency for ever; and if found guilty of treating through his agents he was to be excluded from sitting for the same constituency for seven years. The penalties were also increased. Under the Bill corrupt practices would be punishable by imprisonment with hard labour, or by a fine not exceeding £200. The disqualifications had also been extended. The Bill proceeded to deal with a class of offences termed "illegal practices," which included illegal payments, illegal employment, and other illegal acts specified. Thus the conveyance of voters to the poll, except in one or two exceptional constituencies, was made an illegal practice. The effect of this provision would be appreciated when it was remembered that during the last General Election no less a sum than £750,000 was expended in conveying voters to the poll, the expenditure in one county being between £6,000 and £7,000. The Bill also regulated the number of election agents and paid canvassers to be appointed, and the number of committee rooms to be hired in each constituency. It prohibited the hiring of any houses for the display of placards, or anything of the kind. It also fixed the maximum sum to be expended during an election by each candidate. The personal expenses of a candidate were limited to £100, and the following were the maximum amounts hereafter to be spent by Returning Officers:—For a borough of under 2,000 electors, £350; over 2,000 electors, £380; and £30 more for every additional 1,000 of electors; for counties with under 2,000 electors, £650 in England and Scotland, £500 in Ireland; over 2,000 electors, £710 in England and Scotland, £540 in Ireland, with £60 more in England and Scotland and £40 more in Ireland for every additional 1,000 of electors. The expenses of the General Election in 1880 were officially returned as £1,800,000; but he believed that the amount was really not less than £2,500,000. This Bill, if it had been in force, would have reduced the sum to between £600,000 and £800,000. That the amounts specified in the Schedule were sufficient was already proved by experi-

    699
    ence at King's Lynn, Peterborough, North Northumberland, Bedfordshire, and Hackney, where the expenses were less than would be legal under the Bill. It was trusted that under the new system to be established by this Bill the real opinion of the constituencies would be more certainly expressed than it was under the existing system. Certain disqualifications and penalties were attached to "illegal practices" and "illegal payments." There were also provisions which enabled a Judge to try a person accused of corrupt practices on the spot; barristers and solicitors were to be dealt with by their governing bodies, and licensed victuallers by the licensing authority. The Bill contained ample Equity Clauses. The case of a candidate who was only technically guilty of corrupt practices by his agent was provided for, and the Election Court was given power to declare that the election of a person so guilty should not be void; the Election Court had also power to except trifling acts which were illegal under the letter of the law, but not under the spirit. Any trifling default which a candidate or his agent might make with respect to returns and declarations was not to be subject to the penalties laid down in the Bill for acts of default. No doubt, it would be difficult to alter customs which had long prevailed in some places; but there was great hope that the offences mentioned in the Bill would be diminished. One good result of the measure would be the increased employment of voluntary instead of paid workers at Parliamentary elections. In conclusion, he thought their Lordships were all aware of the great and patient consideration which had been bestowed on this important subject. It was mentioned in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne in 1881, and a Bill was introduced in 1882 but could not be then proceeded with. This year a most patient and attentive consideration had been given to it in "another place" under the very able and conciliatory direction of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. So far as the general principle of the Bill went, it had been received in the other House of Parliament with general concurrence, and had been frankly and fairly discussed without the intervention of the ordinary
    700
    divisions which separated the two great Parties in Parliament. He, therefore, trusted their Lordships would give the Bill a second reading, and apply a real remedy to the great evils which all admitted, and so render more free and complete the representation of the people in the other House of Parliament. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the title of the Bill as commonly quoted—namely, the Corrupt Practices Bill—in reality gave a very inadequate idea of its real scope and intention; but, undoubtedly, it did deal to some extent with corrupt practices, and so far as it did so it would carry with it the sympathies of their Lordships and all persons who desired to see such great evils remedied. But in reference to that part of the Bill, they could only say that in the past history of the country it had not been found that the increasing of penalties had usually been accompanied by any great diminution of offences. At all events, it was a plan which had been frequently tried without success. He did not quarrel with the motives which had induced the Government to this further effort; but the record of similar efforts was not encouraging as to the probability of success. It was not, however, with respect to corrupt practices, in regard to which there would hardly be any difference of opinion, that the Bill was principally important. A very remarkable characteristic of the Bill was the very wide extension it had given to illegal practices which were in no sense corrupt illegal practices, which of themselves were not morally wrong or repugnant to the most sensitive morality, and which were only made wrong by being for bidden by Act of Parliament, and in regard to which the Government could not expect any extensive assistance from public opinion. The motive of the Government was very obvious, and the noble Earl had stated it with fairness and candour; the object was not so much to prevent corrupt practices as to diminish the vast expenses attending elections. He did not quarrel with that attempt, as he thought it was desirable that elections should be made cheaper,

    701
    if only for the purpose of enabling persons of limited means, who had the capacity, to aspire to a seat in Parliament. Like Mr. Forster, speaking in Devonshire, he thought the surprise in the constituencies would be very great when they saw what a measure was provided for them. He had heard it said that the persons who would be successful at the next General Election would be the second candidates, as all the first candidates would be disqualified for corrupt practices. Certainly, the provisions of the Bill were so minute, and the penalties so wide, and the chance of tripping so enormous, that a man would need to be very courageous and resolute, and very indifferent to penalties, to run the risk of a General Election. As it was said that all railway evils would be cured when a Railway Director was killed, so he only hoped that the first persons to suffer under the Bill would be Cabinet Ministers, and then he had no doubt an amending Bill would be speedily introduced. He had no anxiety to arrest or hinder the Bill in Parliament. It was only to last till December of next year. It was very reasonable that in view of the great evils with which we had to contend the Government should make this experiment, especially as it was an experiment made at the expense of the House of Commons, which had been so good as to pass the Bill in order to inflict the penalties on themselves. But there were one or two provisions to which he would like to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government, as they seemed to him open to question, and the first was the very serious proposal to deprive an elector of the means of conveyance to the poll. The policy of Parliament hitherto had been in the opposite direction—namely, to afford facilities to the voter of getting to the poll; but now Parliament was retracing its steps, and said that in the case of a man living at a distance from a polling station he should have no artificial means of getting to the poll. He did not know how that would work. It was, however, permitted to people to lend carriages, and they were told that those who had carriages to lend would be at an advantage compared with those who had not. But apart from such artificial assistance, he thought there could be no doubt that people living in wild and desolate districts, where the prescribed
    702
    number of 100 electors could not usually be made up, would run great risk of being practically disfranchised. He was not sure whether he preferred the opinions of people living in outlying districts or of those living in towns; but he thought that whenever the Bill came forward to be put into a more permanent shape they must not allow it, under a pretext to diminish expenses, to be in reality an Act for disfranchising those persons whose votes were disagreeable to the Government of the day. That was, however, difficult to ascertain until they had actually had experience of the working of it, and it was a matter to which the attention of those interested in Parliamentary elections would be carefully directed, and they would, no doubt, then have full statistics as to how far people living in far distant districts were prevented from voting. There was another clause in the Bill which belonged to a class of legislation which, he confessed, he viewed with great repugnance, and that was the practice of ascertaining the facts by squeezing them out of a witness to his own incrimination in the witness-box. Their Lordships were aware that it was an old maxim of English law that no man was bound to criminate himself; but it had been again and again in recent Acts the policy to overthrow that law, and to use the power of cross-examination in the witness-box in the way in which a President of a French Court would use it—for the purpose of torturing the witness into criminating himself. No doubt, provision was made that the man should not be liable to punishment for what came out; but if he was a solicitor he might be struck off the Rolls, or if a barrister he might be disbarred in consequence of evidence which had been wrung from him under this French method. The facts obtained at criminal trials were obtained from independent witnesses and not from avowals extorted from the criminal. There was another peculiarity in this Bill, and that was that the great engine by which the Government proposed to obtain their ends was making people answerable for the acts of others over whom they had no control. It was a rough and barbarous mode of procedure well known to schoolmasters. It used to be not an unfrequent practice for a whole remove to be punished in order to find

    703
    out one boy, and that was the way of this Bill. The man whom the Bill punished was not the man who bribed, but the unfortunate candidate who had had nothing whatever to do with the illegal act, and the Government hoped to effect their object in that way. That was the agency established by that Bill. In the contemplation of law an agent could not acquire that character without the authority of his principal; but in the strange legislation before them anyone could constitute himself agent of the candidate without the consent or even the knowledge of his principal; he had merely to take part in the election without the candidate even knowing his name, and he could fasten upon the candidate the guilt which was aimed at by the Bill. That seemed to him a very objectionable state of things; and when Governments and Legislatures, in order to gain their ends, had recourse to these proceedings, which conflicted with the common sense and morality of mankind, it was not difficult to predict that such legislation would fail. But they would not only fail, but would do worse. They would bring the action of the law into disrepute, and would cease to have public opinion on their side. It would cease to be disgraceful to fall under the penalties of the law, and the law would be driven to attain its ends simply by the terror it excited, and not by the sympathy of the community. He regarded this peculiarity in the Law of Agency as a disgrace to the law, and one which had produced, and would produce, great evils. Those who thought it their business to find fault with the softer sex, said that if you wish to know the important part of a lady's letter you must look at the postscript. If they wanted to know the important part of this Bill they must look in the middle of it. The 44th clause was the strangest clause he ever saw put into an Act of Parliament. It said, in fact, that they might punish all future culprits as hard as they liked, but that it did not apply to those who were culprits now. It was a clause enacting that in all future investigations into electoral corruption they should be forbidden to ask any impertinent questions as to anything that had taken place before the passing of the Act. He presumed that it was passed in the interest of those Members who did not intend to
    704
    stand again, and who might desire to be whitewashed. He knew nothing of the genesis of this Bill; but if, at some future time, any antiquarian should try, from internal evidence, to construct its history, he would say that someone had been concerned in the preparation of it who did not wish his transactions with some constituency to be known. Whether their Lordships would care to alter the Bill he did not know. He should be sorry if it failed to pass, and there was, no doubt, danger at this late season that altering a Bill might prevent its passing; but if any alteration was to be made, he would prefer to see the clause to which he had referred struck out, which, while providing the most savage penalties with regard to corruption in the future, extended an unrestricted amnesty to corruption in the past.
    THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he was sorry that the noble Marquess could find nothing good in any of the measures which came under discussion. Two most simple and innocent clauses of this Bill had been attacked by the noble Marquess as likely to be productive of evil. He could answer the noble Marquess that under the first clause objected to no considerable number of electors would be prevented from coming to the poll. As to the 44th clause, the noble Marquess appeared to think that that proposal was intended to prevent the delinquencies of some unknown individual being brought to light before an Election Commission. If he thought that person was some Member of Her Majesty's Government, he should like to say that the provision was not in the Bill as originally drawn, but was introduced at the suggestion of a Member of the Conservative Party, and the insinuations of the noble Marquess must fall upon his own Friends.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I had no intention of making any insinuation against Her Majesty's Government.
    THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he was glad the suspicions of the noble Marquess were only of a general character. He thought the noble Marquess should not throw the ægis of his protection over those individuals who had been guilty of corrupt practices, and whose acts showed them to be unworthy of exercising the franchise of which they were deprived by the Bill. Nor did he think his reference to the

    705
    subject of the Law of Agency in point. There was no alteration whatever made in that Bill in the Law of Agency.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear!
    THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he did not, therefore, see that the observations of the noble Marquess, however applicable they might be to some other Act, had any reference to the Bill which he now asked their Lordships to read a second time.
    LORD LAMINGTCONsaid, he believed that the severity of the penalty inflicted by the Bill was so great that the object of the Legislature would be defeated, and that in future the expenditure would be almost wholly on Election Petitions.
    THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, he must protest against the Government bringing a Bill of pains and penalties of that character before their Lordships' House at so late a period of the Session, when it was impossible that it could be adequately considered. Such a measure, if presented to the House at all, ought to have been submitted at a time when they could have had a larger attendance of Peers to discuss it. He protested also against the excessive severity and the degrading nature of some of the penalties which the Bill would inflict on certain offences connected with elections, believing, as he did, that such rigorous punishments would not meet with the general sanction and support of public opinion.
    Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  SUEZ CANAL—THE PAPERS.

    QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
    LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, On what ground the original concessions to M. de Lesseps have, in the present Session, been presented to one House and not to both Houses of Parliament? said: My Lords, some days ago I moved for the original concessions to M. de Lesseps which have been lately given in a separate Return to the other House of Parliament. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs endeavoured to persuade your Lordships that the Motion was uncalled for; and,
    706
    as I understood him, told us that these documents were in the Egyptian Correspondence of this Session. I was thus led to withdraw the Motion. Having inquired more assiduously than before, I now assert with confidence that they are not in any number of the Egyptian Correspondence lately brought before the House. It is quite possible that if you go back for years in a former series of despatches upon Egypt, these concessions might be found; and this, perhaps, is what the noble Earl intended to convoy to us. But it is well known to be within the limit of our usages to reprint documents which bear on urgent questions of the day, although they may be found in some remote or obsolete collection. As I before explained, Her Majesty's Government have acted on this principle with reference to these concessions in the present year, and in the other House of Parliament. In this House, equally, I ask them to supply a want, even if they do not recognize an error.
    EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was the rule of the Foreign Office, when Papers were presented to the one House of Parliament, they should also, at the same time, be presented to the other. They had always observed that rule. The answer to the noble Lord's Question was that those Papers were presented in the year 1876 to both Houses of Parliament, and that they had not been presented to either House this Session. The noble Lord was under a misapprehension as to that. What had happened was this—as their Lord ships were aware, the individuals composing that House did not change at a General Election, whereas the result of a General Election often produced a great change in the persons composing the other House of Parliament. That was the case after the last General Election; and he understood that, for the convenience of new Members of the other House, a few copies of those Papers from the stock at the Foreign Office were sent to the Library of the House of Commons, and that House gave orders that they should be printed. If the noble Lord now desired to have an individual copy of the Papers which were produced in 1876, he should be very ready to furnish it to him; but, as far as regarded the House collectively, those Papers had been already presented, and he was not aware

    707
    that there was any occasion to print them again.
    LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: The noble Earl has said nothing to contravene my observation—namely, that there has been an undue disparity of proceeding on this subject in the two Houses of Parliament.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.