Sitting of 23 August 1883

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Nicholas Lynch, esquire, for the County of Sligo.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Factories and Workshops Amendment * [273], and passed.
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation), and passed.
Withdrawn—Public Health (Dairies, &c.) * [280]; union Officers Superannuation (Ireland) * [132]; High Court of Justice (Continuous Sittings) * [233].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in the case of the Milford Docks Bill, Standing Order 246 be suspended, and that the Lords' Amendments to the Bill be now taken into Consideration."'—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. CALLANsaid, some documents had been placed in his hands within the last quarter of an hour which were really of a startling nature, and he thought that, under the circumstances disclosed in those documents, the House ought not to consent to suspend the Standing Order. Standing Order 246
    1720
    provided that when Amendments made by the House of Lords to any Private Bill were to be considered, one clear days' Notice thereof should be given. Now, that was a very wise provision, because it allowed the parties concerned time to prepare their respective cases. He would not have risen to oppose the present Motion were it not for a statutory Declaration which had been made by a celebrated officer in the Army. [Captain AYLMER: Oh, oh!] Notwithstanding the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone, he maintained that, unlike the hon. and gallant Member himself, Lieutenant Colonel Hope was a celebrated officer in the Army, and did not belong to the Militia. Lieutenant Colonel Hope had earned the Victoria Cross, and his words, therefore, were in his (Mr. Callan's) opinion worthy of great respect. The statutory Declaration to which he referred was as follows:—
    "I, Lieutenant Colonel William Hope, V.C., of the Army and Navy Club, Pall Mall, in the City of Westminster, do solemnly and sincerely declare that I have read the Petition of Samuel Lake to the House of Lords, praying for an investigation into the charges brought by him against the officials of the Milford Docks Company, and into the effect of the provisions of the Bill now pending. I have also read two 'Statements' circulated by the promoters of the Bill in reply to the said Petition, and I do solemnly and sincerely declare that, as my name is mentioned by both sides, I consider it my duty to come forward and declare that almost every one of the allegations in the said Petition is true to my personal knowledge."
    That was a clear and specific statement made by a Lieutenant Colonel in the British Army, holding the Victoria Cross. Lieutenant Colonel Hope went on to say:—
    "I also declare that complete legal evidence exists to prove the said allegations. I also declare that the 'Statements' of the promoters are almost, without exception, wholly untrue, often to the knowledge of the promoters and of their solicitor, even when appearing to be supported by documents mendaciously alluded to."
    Such was the Declaration made in regard to a Bill for which the House of Commons were asked at the end of a Session to suspend a Standing Order.
    "And that the 'Statements' also contain matters of the nature of a suppressio veri or of a suggestio falsi. I further solemnly and sincerely declare that I consider it my clear and paramount duty to Her Majesty the Queen to make this Declaration for the purpose of endeavouring to prevent the Royal Assent being

    1721
    asked to the Milford Docks Bill in its present form. And I make this solemn Declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835."
    That was a very important statement; and now he (Mr. Callan) would read to the House a Statement which he would not have read had it not been substantiated by that Declaration of the holder of the Victoria Cross. The Statement was presented to the House of Lords, and was as follows:—
    "The most humble Petition of Samuel Lake, late of No. 1, Victoria Street, in the City of Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, and of Milford Haven, in the county of Pembroke, and of Felixstowe, in the county of Suffolk, late a contractor for public works, railway lessee, and landed proprietor, and now a bankrupt, sheweth—
    "1. That a Bill is now pending in your Right Honourable House intituled the 'Mil-ford Docks Bill.'
    "2. That your Petitioner was, among other things, contractor for the Milford Docks by deed under seal.
    "3, That the present Bill is promoted for the purpose of covering and consecrating a series of forgeries, frauds, perjuries, and malversations, and that it is against public policy and public morality that it should become law.
    "4. That your Petitioner undertakes to prove by documentary evidence and oral testimony:—
    "A. That the funds authorized by Parliament to be raised have been diverted from the works of the Company.
    "B. That the sum of £5,000 was paid by the previous contractor to the promoters.
    "C. That only £12,000 of the ordinary shares was subscribed for by the public, upon which one of the Directors, Mr. Frederick Pope, a man of straw, subscribed for £120,000, upon which he never paid one shilling."
    That was a grave allegation, and he (Mr. Callan) did not think the House would be inclined to suspend one of its Standing Orders in favour of a Bill against which such an allegation was made, and supported, as it was, on the oath of an eminent officer of Her Majesty's Army.
    "D. That upon the strength of this fraudulent subscription the Directors procured a false affidavit to be made before a Justice, and issued debentures."
    Did the Directors make such an affidavit, and did they issue debentures? If they did, they certainly committed fraud, forgery, and perjury.
    "E. That they then paid about £190,000 to Mr. Appleby, the previous contractor, for work not worth more than £50,000 at the contract prices.
    "F. That they then procured to be made forged progress sections and drawings showing
    1722
    much more work than had actually been done.
    "G. That the work at the entrance having utterly collapsed, your Petitioner was then called in to remedy it, with the promise of cash payments as follows:—In preference shares at 85, equal to £27,000 in cash; cash from Great Western Railway, £50,000; cash from Great Eastern Steamship Company, £3,000.
    "H. That the statement as to the Great Western Company's subscription and the Great Eastern Steamship Company's was false and untrue."
    Would any Member of the House get up in his place and state, of his own knowledge, that the Great Western were prepared to pay £50,000, and that the Great Eastern Steamship Company was prepared to pay £3,000? If not, he thought the House would scout this attempt to suspend a Standing Order in favour of a Bill promoted under such circumstances as were disclosed in these Declarations.
    "I. That the Company has not yet paid one farthing for the land and foreshore upon which the Docks stand, and of which your Petitioner has a lease for 999 years."
    And then there was a charge made against a Public Company. He did not know whether any of the Directors of that Company were present or not; in fact, he did not know who they were; he did not see the statements to which he had called attention until a quarter of an hour ago. [Captain A.YLMER: Hear, hear!] The statements, however, were very important in his eyes, because they were supported by the affidavit of a holder of the Victoria Cross, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Regular Army, and not in the Militia; and it was to the latter, he understood, the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer belonged. The Petition of Lake went on—
    "K. That they owe large sums of money as compensation to the landowners and occupiers whoso frontage they have cut off.
    "L. That they have issued £96,000 of forged debentures.
    "M. That a series of Petitions to wind up the Company have been presented to the Court of Chancery."
    If so, why should this House step in to interfere between litigants in the Court of Chancery? It would be well that the House should leave the settlement of the matters to the Court of Chancery.
    "N. That the Directors procured an affidavit from the late Chairman, Sir E. J. Reed, K.C.B., M.P., to the effect that the Company was perfectly solvent and had funds to the extent of a

    1723
    quarter of a million sterling, when at that time, as it now turns out, the balance at their hankers was £1 17 s. 6d., upon the faith of which affidavit the said Petitions were ordered to stand over."
    That was a startling statement; and it was certainly not for the House of Commons to inquire whether it was true or false. The matter was one to be gone into by the Court of Chancery, and not by the House. It was then stated—
    "O. That a similar affidavit was made in support of an action of ejectment which the Directors brought against me, and upon which Mr. Justice Pearson granted a decree.
    "P. That when the issue of the forged debentures was discovered and denounced by me, the broker who had been instrumental in issuing them, and who is now a Director of the Company and promoter of the present Bill, applied ex parte to the Court of Chancery and got himself appointed Receiver."
    There were a number of other statements made in the Petition with which he (Mr. Callan) would not weary the House by reading. He thought he had quoted sufficient to show that the House ought not to accede to the present Motion. In the first place, he would ask, as a point of Order, whether this Motion, being objected to, it must not be put off until to-morrow? If that were so, he would not proceed further.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he would call the attention of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Callan) to Standing Order 224, which said—"Except due notice thereof shall have been given." Notice had been given in the House, and, therefore, the present proceedings were quite regular.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he was not astonished at the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Callan) when he said that he had only had the documents from which he had quoted in his possession for a quarter of an hour. It was only necessary to say that this Bill was brought forward on the suspension of the Standing Orders in both Houses of Parliament because the bankrupt contractor left the works in such a state that if Parliament did not come to the rescue they would be washed away during the coming winter. The Standing Orders were suspended when the Bill came before the Committee of the House of Commons, and in the House of Lords the only opposition to the Bill came from the trustees of the bankrupt contractor. At the contractor's instigation, and in order that any claim that he might have under this Bill might be respected,
    1724
    clauses were brought up in the House of Lords which this House was now asked to approve of. Lord Mill-town opposed the third reading of the Bill in the other House upon the ground of the allegations of Mr. Lake and Lieutenant Colonel Hope, though he said he would not sully the ears of the House by reading them. Lord Redesdale said there were no grounds to object to the further progress of the Bill, and, therefore, he called upon Lord Milltown to withdraw his opposition. Lord Milltown acceded to the request, and the Bill was read a third time. The object of the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) was that the Standing Order should not be suspended, in order that the Bill should be thrown out. The Bill had passed its third reading in both Houses, and was now only opposed, on the Amendments introduced by the House of Lords, by a Gentleman who was not satisfied were certain clauses inserted. The objection to the Bill was such that the House ought not to listen to for one moment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords' Amendments agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "IRIS."
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will be good enough to inform the House whether the structural strength of the Ocean Cruiser "Iris," in framing, main, and shell plating, is more or less than that of vessels of similar size, and classed 100 A 1 in the Merchant Service, say of the White Star Line; and, if it be correct that her coal endurance is only equal to seven days in ordinary weather, whereas merchant ships of similar size and greater speed possess a coal endurance of over thirty days besides cargo?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Sir, in answering my hon. Friend's Question, it is important to explain that the displacement of the Iris is 3,700 tons, while that of the White Star Line is from 7,000 to 10,000 tons. Comparing the Iris with a merchant ship of the same size classed 100 A 1 at Lloyd's, the thickness of the frames and plates is less, and the frames are further apart, but the system of construction is different throughout. The

  1725
  Iris is a double ship from the keel to the tipper deck, heavily bulk headed, and framed to suit these conditions. That the Iris is a strong ship was proved conclusively by the small damage sustained when ashore at Port Agusta. The Iris has a bunker capacity for 39 days at full speed of 18 knots. Merchant steamers of similar speed but twice the size have coal capacity for seven to ten days. The long coal endurance referred to it in the Question is associated with much lower speed.

  EGYPT—THE CHOLERA.
  MR. D. GRANTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been drawn to the facts that France has voted a sum of money and Germany has decided to send a scientific commission to Egypt to study and report upon the special conditions of the outbreak of cholera in that Country; and, whether the Report from our own medical officers which is to be laid upon the Table of the House is of the ordinary character, or will it have some elements of scientific investigation and precision so as to be of value in our knowledge of the disease?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend. Dr. Hunter has already full instructions to report, for the information of the Sanitary Department of the Local Government Board, on the character and origin of the disease; and, considering the importance of the subject, I have forwarded a copy of the hon. Member's Question to him.

  CIVIL SERVANTS OF THE CROWN— ENGAGEMENT IN OTHER EMPLOYMENTS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can now state the result of his consideration of the Question of general rules regarding the acceptance of paid employments ouside their office duties by public servants already remunerated by salary, which gives the State a claim to their whole powers, and that in respect not only to Treasury Officers, but to all Civil Servants, and to Judicial Functionaries, such as the County Court Judge in county Durham, who was alleged to have accepted a paid office in connection with a Committee of Mines and Mineowners in the same county?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHTLDERS): Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government have had this subject under their consideration, but that it involves far greater difficulties than at first sight I anticipated when I replied to my hon. Friend's former Question, and that we have not yet arrived at any decision covering the whole of the Public Service. I had not heard of the case of the County Court Judge in the County of Durham; but I have ascertained from the Lord Chancellor that he is making inquiries on the subject.

  WEST INDIES—STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES IN GRENADA.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to his statement that the Colonial Office disapproved of such a practice as that of the stipendiary magistrate in Grenada, who was himself a planter and employer of indentured labour, "Whether the Secretary of State has issued any general rules to Crown Colonies prohibiting stipendiary magistrates, and other officers charged with the protection of Coolies and labourers, from engaging in private occupations which render them interested parties in questions between employers and labourers; and, whether there are any general rules restraining public servants receiving salaries entitling the State to their full powers from engaging in private employments for gain?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, before issuing any general Rules regulating this matter, the Secretary of State has thought well to inquire by Circular as to how many instances of the kind exist, and the circumstances under which the few cases may have arisen. But I do not withdraw anything from what I said the other day—that the Colonial Office strongly disapprove of magistrates being concerned in any way within their districts with the employment of Coolies and labourers. In reply to the second Question, I will read the 76th of the Colonial Regulations, which runs as follows:—
  "All salaried public officers are prohibited from engaging in trade, or connecting themselves with any commercial undertaking without leave from the Governor, approved by the

  1727
  Secretary of State. As a general rule this prohibition will he made absolute in the case of officers whose remuneration is fixed on the assumption that their whole time is at the disposal of the Government."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Has the hon. Gentleman reason to suppose that Rule is realty acted upon?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir; I apprehend it is.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the paragraph which has appeared in the public journals is correct, to the effect that the London School Board have, in the course of the present year, entered into contracts for ten new schools, and for the enlargement of twenty-two existing schools, at a total outlay of £123,462; and, whether the Education Department, before sanctioning such an outlay, have taken means to satisfy themselves that so large an addition to the schools buildings of the Metropolis is really required, and that no undue competition with existing schools will be thereby sanctioned?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, in reply to an inquiry which I have made of the London School Board, I have received the following Statement:—
  "The contracts accepted by the Board during the current year, are as follows—Sanctioned by Education Department to August 22, 1883. Eight new schools, accommodation 7,263, amount of tenders £81,061; 11 enlargements, accommodation 3,920, amount of tenders £38,441; total—accommodation 111,183, amount of tenders £120,102."
  My answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative in every particular. After the School Board has made its proposal, Her Majesty's Inspectors and the Department satisfy themselves, in every case, that the accommodation is required. They are bound to do this under Section 10 of the Act of 1873. I must remind the hon. Member that, apart from the large existing deficiency of accommodation within the Metropolis, the growth of population alone necessitates additional provision for 10,000 children every year. The Census for 1881 showed an increase of population of 600,000 over that of 1871. Of course, the normal increase becomes larger every year.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— PENSIONS.
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a head constable in the Irish Constabulary who joined before 10th August 1866, and has now served thirty years, of which five years were in the rank of head constable, is entitled now on retirement to receive a pension of £91 per annum?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir, a head constable retiring under such circumstances would be entitled to the pension stated.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— ALLOWANCES TO INVALIDED CONSTABLES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that sub-constable Peter Caulfield, of Drumcondra, county Dublin, has been invalided since November 1881, on account of injuries received on duty; whether he is returned unfit for further services by the Medical Board since the 14th March 1883; and, whether it is intended to discharge him on the yearly allowance to which he would be entitled under the new Constabulary Act, or under the Act in force when he joined?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the sub-constable named became non-effective from a fall received, when on duty, in November, 1881. The Medical Board, before whom he appeared three times, were very doubtful of his case, and thought that, with judicious treatment, he might recover. However, he was returned unfit for further service in March last. His pension was not fixed, pending the passing of the new Act, and, in the meantime, he became seriously ill, and was sent for treatment to Steevens' Hospital, where he still remains. It is proposed to pension him under the now Act. The matter needs inquiry, and will get it.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)— KENSINGTON POOR RATES.
  MR. HEALYasked the President of the Local Government Board, How the Parochial Rates made by the Kensington Poor Trustees on the 14th of April last, for the six months ending October next, can be consistently regarded as

  1729
  outstanding (as set forth in their final notice of warrant of distress); and, if payment is required to be immediately enforced, why such enforcement cannot be resorted to without summoning and issuing such a notice, when they possess the alternative power of distraining, which could be notified at such date without expense, as pursued in the case of all Rates and Taxes whatsoever other than Parochial, viz. Gas, Water, Queen's, &c.?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Sir, parochial rates are made prospectively, and the rates become due as soon as they are made and legally demanded. The rates made by the parochial authority of Kensington in April last are for the purpose of defraying the expenditure during the half-year from the 26th March last; and in order to meet the demands of the Guardians, the Police Commissioners, and other charges, it is essential that the rates should be collected promptly. Before distraining on the goods of a ratepayer for parochial rates, the Statute requires that a warrant of distress should be issued, and this warrant can only be granted after the person in default has been summoned to show cause why the amount has net been paid. The parochial authorities have not, therefore, the alternative of distraining without previous summons. Neither is there any such power with regard to gas and water rates.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE MAGHERA POSTMISTRESS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the fact that the appointment of postmaster in Maghera, county Derry, has been, or is about to be, granted to a leading member of the Local Liberal Association, or to any person entirely ignorant of Post Office duties, in preference to the young lady who managed the office during the illness of the late postmistress; whether the lady in question is quite competent to discharge the duties of the office satisfactorily, and that she had done so for a considerable period; whether she served an apprenticeship of five years in Draperstown to Post Office work; and, will he kindly state upon what principles the appointment will be granted?
  MR. FAWCETT: The nomination to the vacant sub-post-office at Maghera rests with the Treasury, and the vacancy was reported to the Treasury yesterday. Three applications in favour of three different persons have reached mo—one from the lady to whom the hon. Member refers—and have all been forwarded to the Treasury.
  MR. HEALY: When the right hon. Gentleman says the appointment rests with the Treasury, does he mean that the Treasury makes the appointment on the recommendation of the local Member of Parliament, who, in the case of Derry, would be the Attorney General for Ireland?
  MR. FAWCETT: The matter rests with the Treasury. I have nothing to do with it.
  MR. HEALY: To-morrow I will ask the Secretary to the Treasury a Question on the subject.
  MR. COURTNEY: I have nothing to do with these appointments.
  MR. HEALY: Then I will ask the noble Lord opposite (Lord Richard Grosvenor).

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CASE OF SUB-CONSTABLE PRIOR.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the latter end of June last, Sub-Constable Prior was fined £5 at Belfast Petty Sessions for an assault on a man named Offeeir; and, whether Prior still continues in the service?
  MR. TREVELYAN: the constable was fined, but lodged an appeal, and entered into recognizances to appear. Pending the hearing of the appeal at the September Sessions no action can be taken in the case.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— POLICE FORCE AT GLIN, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the case that the police force in the town of Glin, county Limerick, is left in charge of an acting-constable named O'Brien; and, whether it is usual to give so important a charge to a policeman of inferior rank?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that it is usual, when a constable is not available, to place an acting constable in charge of small outposts such as Glin;

  1731
  and that acting constable O'Brien, a senior man in his rank who will very soon be promoted, was selected as having good local knowledge, and being otherwise well fitted for the post.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— KILDARE INFIRMARY.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the decision of the cess-payers, refusing to renew the presentment for the Kildare Infirmary, was overridden by the votes of magistrates, four of whom were Governors of the Infirmary; whether their votes were legal; and, whether there is any authority empowered to institute an independent inquiry into charges touching the management of the Infirmary?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I stated, in reply to a former Question, how the majority which carried the presentment was composed as regards magistrates and cesspayers. Four of the magistrates who voted in the majority were Governors of the Infirmary. I am not prepared to say whether or not their votes were legal. It is not a question for the Executive to decide. I am advised that it is open to any cesspayer, who may think the votes illegal, to question their validity in the ordinary course of law, either before the going Judge of Assize, or by application to the High Court of Justice. As regards the concluding paragraph of the Question, the Local Government Board have power to examine into the administration of a county infirmary supported by Grand Jury presentment. They have not been applied to to exercise that power in this case.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (IRELAND) —SITTINGS OF THE PROBATE AND MATRIMONIAL DIVISION.
  MR. O'BRIENasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, During how many full days Judge Warren, of the Probate and Matrimonial Division, conducted business in Court within the last twelve months; in how many cases were appeals taken from his decisions; and, in how many of these cases were his decisions upheld.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the officers of the Court were at present absent, and he was not able to procure a Return
  1732
  of the number of days on which the Court sat during the past 12 months. He could undertake to say, however, that there were no arrears. Of the appeals made, the decisions of the Judge were upheld in the four cases tried.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman state the number of days the Judge sat?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. POETER)said, he could not.

  MADAGASCAR—THE FRENCH AT TAMATAVE—CASE OF THE REV. MR. SHAW.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether there is any power or authority to try a prisoner of war for acts done before his capture by those who make him prisoner, unless detected as a spy and out of uniform; and, whether Mr. Shaw, now prisoner at large on board a French man of war at Tamatave, is a prisoner of war and accused of being a spy?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is under some misapprehension as to the extent of the right of trial exercised by the military tribunals of an army occupying foreign territory for the purposes of war. Under such circumstances, the military tribunals of the occupying army claim jurisdiction to try the inhabitants of the country for any military offence—that is, an offence committed by them against the army itself. I do not think that it would be either convenient or expedient for me to attempt to define the offences which are of such a character as to justify the military tribunals in exercising their jurisdiction; but I certainly can say that such a power is not confined to the instance given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in the Question he has put to me.

  CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HARBOURS— ACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it be the intention of Her Majesty's present Advisers to postpone the construction of all new harbours, especially harbours of refuge, on the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland, until the completion of the new harbour works at Dover?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, this Question had been put down under misapprehension. He was not aware of any harbours the Government were constructing at the present time; and, consequently, there could be no postponement.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—THE COLLECTOR GENERAT OF RATES, DUBLIN.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Law Officers have yet decided, with regard to the prosecution of the Collector General for Dublin; and, when he expects to announce the decision of the Lord Lieutenant with reference to the Collector's retention in office?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The first paragraph of this Question I have already answered. With regard to the second, the matter is still before His Excellency, who has not yet decided upon it.
  MR. HEALYasked whether it was not now two months since this Question was originally put on the Paper; and why was it that the Government, who could so readily proceed against an Irish Member, took such a long time to make up their minds?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he doubted whether the Question was put on the Paper two months ago; but if the hon. Member was sure upon the subject it must have been so. The matter was not in the hands of the Executive first, but in the hands of the Land Commission. It had only come before the Executive for decision within the last seven or eight days, and it was not yet decided upon.
  MR. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the telegraph is now in working operation between London and Cork?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Lord Lieutenant, as far as he knew, might have only just received the Papers, and to decide upon the retention of a public servant—he would not say a high servant, but any public servant—was a matter that could not be done offhand, especially at a distance from the town whore that public servant resided.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he should repeat the Question to-morrow.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that Mr. Clifford Lloyd has been re-appointed Special Resident Magistrate for a period of nine months?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Clifford Lloyd has not been re-appointed, as he has never resigned. I may state, however, that the authority for the employment of Special Resident Magistrates will expire on the 30th of September next.
  MR. KENNY: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that Mr. Clifford Lloyd's appointment will not be continued after that date?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The only answer I can give to that is, that up to the 30th September the Special Resident Magistrates will be continued in their position.

  VACCINATION—CASE OF E. A. HENNING.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will inquire into the case of a child named Emily Agnes Henning, of 273, Mayall Road, Herne Hill, aged four months, who was vaccinated on the 25th July, was, within three days, attacked with symptoms of blood poisoning, and died in great suffering on August 15th; whether he is aware that the certificate of death stated the cause to be Erysipelas P. Convulsions S. without mentioning vaccination; and, whether he will cause an inquiry into the circumstances satisfactory to the parents?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Sir, the child was vaccinated on the 25th of July by Mr. Niall, who is not a public vaccinator, and was not attacked with symptoms of blood poisoning within three days after vaccination. The vaccination ran its normal course, and the result on the eighth day after vaccination was regarded as satisfactory by the medical man who had vaccinated the child. One of the vesicles, however, became broken through the rubbing of a piece of muslin, and following on this occurrence a blush of the nature of erysipelas appeared on the arm. This was on the ninth, and not the third day after vaccination. This subsequently spread, and the child died three weeks after vaccination. Having regard to the history

  1735
  of the case, and to the date when the inflammatory blush first appeared, it would seem that death resulted from the absorption of some septic matter by the surface of the broken vesicle, and not from the vaccination itself, which, apart from the accident to the vesicle, was running its normal course. Under these circumstances, the primary, and secondary causes of death are, in the Board's opinion, correctly stated in the certificate; and the Board see no sufficient reason for further inquiry.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— THE BOARD SCHOOL BOOKS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an official Letter read by certain inspectors of the Board of National Education to teachers, threatening them with the cancelling of all results fees if they presumed to use any books, stationery, or requisites other than those on the Board's sale stock-list, was signed by Mr. John E. Sheridan, now acknowledged as the author of an English grammar on same list; whether Mr. Sheridan takes part in the selection of books for sale to schools; and, whether any work on English grammar has been marked "objected to" in his office, before being submitted to the Commissioners?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Commissioners of National Education inform me that they presume that the first paragraph of this Question refers to a Circular issued in July, 1881, by their order, and signed by their joint Secretaries, Messrs. Newell and Sheridan, directing Inspectors to caution teachers against using objectionable books in their schools, and threatening the cancelling of results fees whenever such warning should be disregarded. With regard to the second and third paragraphs of the Question, the selection of books is made by the Commissioners themselves, and not by either of their Secretaries; and Mr. Sheridan has not marked any books "objected to," except such as had already been condemned by the Board.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, within the past four years, any teachers of national schools have been censured or otherwise punished for using in their schools plain stationery copybooks, or written exercise books,
  1736
  not sold at the Commissioners' store in Dublin; and, whether Her Majesty's Government would approve of or sanction such proceedings on the part of the Commissioners or their representatives, especially in cases where it could be proved that the article condemned was superior to that which could be got from the Board at the same price?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that the rule to which this Question refers is as follows:—
  "Teachers are strictly prohibited from using in their schools any hooks, &c, not expressly sanctioned by the Board, and from making any profit from the sale of requisites to their pupils."
  Some teachers persistently violated this rule, and were warned or censured. A year ago the application of the second part of the rule was modified, and the prohibition from making pecuniary profits by the sale of requisites to pupils applies (except in flagrant cases of abuse) only to the books or other requisites issued from the Board's stores. Mere blank exercise books, such as are mentioned in the Question, need not be submitted for approval by the Board.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether a similar kind of supervision was exercised over schools in England; was it not a fact that the matter was left entirely in the hands of the local authorities?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was satisfied that in England, as elsewhere, teachers were not allowed to make an inordinate profit out of stationery supplied to their school children.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The point I wished to direct attention to is this. In England there is practically free trade in the supply of books, whereas in Ireland there is practically a monopoly.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—LEAVE.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Postmaster General, What is the number of clerks in the Telegraph Department of the Belfast Post Office with less than nine years' service who are allowed three weeks' annual leave, and the number with over nine and not exceeding thirteen years' service who, though performing the same duties, are only granted a fortnight's annual holiday; also the number of clerks in the

  1737
  Postal Department of the same Office with, service not exceeding thirteen years who are granted one month's annual leave; and if there is a single instance of a clerk with long service and good conduct having been transferred from any provincial office to the Telegraph Department of the Liverpool, Manchester, or Glasgow Post Offices, being called upon to perform night duty, and only allowed a fortnight's annual holiday; and, whether in Irish offices, such as Dublin and Belfast, whore the duties are precisely the same as in the offices referred to, officials are treated differently in this respect?
  MR. FAWCETT: The first of the two Questions put by the hon. Member is a repetition of one that was addressed to me at the beginning of last month. I then explained that the reason for some of the telegraphists in the Belfast Post Office having three weeks' leave, while the rest have a fortnight, was that at Belfast some officers had received, through an error, longer leave than was given at other post offices. As soon as the mistake was discovered new entrants into the Belfast Post Office were put in the same position with regard to leave as those employed elsewhere. It was not, however, thought expedient to withdraw the longer leave from those who had previously enjoyed it. I also stated that in consequence of the postal duties being much more harassing than those of the telegraphists, some of those employed on the postal side have more than a fortnight's leave. With regard to the hon. Member's second Question, I have not been able, during the short interval which has elapsed since Notice of it was given, to collect the required information from the post offices of Liverpool, Manchester, and Glasgow; but I may say generally that the Post Office servants in those cities are not treated exceptionally in the matter of leave, and that throughout the United Kingdom, wherever the circumstances are similar, similar treatment is extended to all.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would take notice of a case of distinct unfairness if it were brought before him?
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, if the hon. Gentleman would direct his attention to a particular case, he would most gladly have it investigated.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—THE REGENT'S PARK.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the boundaries of the inclosures in Regent's Park are precisely defined in the map accompanying the Report of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests laid before Parliament in 1841; and, whether it is the case that in one instance at least an encroachment has been made beyond that defined boundary upon the limits of the Park there declared to be open?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I have looked as the map of 1841; it is obviously very rough, and could not be supposed to contain any precise definition of boundaries. I am informed that there have been no encroachments beyond the boundaries at that time assigned, and delimited to the villa leaseholders.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is the case that the Office of Works had, for thirty years past, the control of the inclosures within Regent's Park which were not leasehold, but let on yearly tenancy to the residents in the villas, and also had, for the same period, received the rents of the same; and, whether it is the case that, notwithstanding, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have now assumed the control, and will in future receive the rents of these Inclosures; and, if so, by virtue of what authority?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, it is quite true that up to a year ago the rents of the inclosures referred to by the hon. Member were received by the Office of Works; but a claim was made by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests that they were part of the revenues of the Crown, and on the matter being referred to the Law Officers, it was held by them that under the Act which constituted the Office of Works, these inclosures not being legally a part of the Park, their rents should, in future, be paid to the Commissioners of Woods.

  CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—OUTDOOR CLERKS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in view of the changes which are now being carried out at the Customs Outports, consequent on the introduction of the new warehousing system, the clerks who may be made

  1739
  redundant will have the opportunity afforded them of retiral on the usual abolition terms, in lieu of being compelled to accept of inferior work, or of being made liable to removal to other ports; whether the senior clerks who are near their maximum of salary, and who may be compelled, or who may elect to retire, will be allowed the full retiring allowance of forty-three-sixtieths on their maximum; and, whether the junior clerks affected by the changes will be allowed the alternative offer of a transference to the Outdoor Department, retiral from the service on the abolition terms, or equivalent clerical employment in other Departments?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, clerks who, on reasonable grounds, decline the outdoor service, and for whom appropriate duties cannot be found at their own or other ports, will be allowed to retire on abolition terms. These terms will not, however, in any case exceed two-thirds of their salaries. That limit was imposed by Statute, and could not be exceeded in the case of the London clerks. In dealing with each case due regard will be had to the health of the officer and other circumstances; but, speaking generally, the men will continue to perform the same class of work as before, and, for the most part, in the same place.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER ACT—THE SOUTHPORT FORESHORE.
  MR. CHEETHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, with regard to the Crown property of the Southport foreshore, which in April last the Duchy agreed to sell, to the extent of 9,000 acres, to the Lords of the Manor for £15,000, whether he is aware that the latter are now asking for 1,286 acres alone no less a sum than £25,000 from the Southport Corporation; and, whether he is able to hold out any prospect of the good offices he has undertaken to use in this matter resulting in the acquisition by the people of Southport, at a fair and reasonable price, of the 4,000 acres of foreshore conterminous with the Borough, the possession of which they regard as of vital consequence to the development of a favourite marine resort of the Lancashire manufacturing population?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, until this morning I had had no official information on the subject. On the 29th of June last,
  1740
  a comprehensive letter was addressed to the Corporation from the Duchy Office, to which there has been no reply; and apparently the matter has been very much taken out of my hands by the Corporation negotiating directly with the landowners. This morning I have received a letter from the solicitors of the landowners stating that, in response to an application from the Corporation, they had offered to sell the whole of the foreshore opposite the town proper, an area of about 2,600 acres, for 2s. 6d. per acre for recreation and sanitary purposes only, and that they are also prepared to sell a further area of 1,286 acres, which comprises, besides foreshore, some very valuable building land with a frontage to the shore of 900 yards, for the sum of £25,000, practically without any restrictions as to its use. I understand that no reply has yet been received to these offers.
  MR. CHEETHAMasked if it was not a fact that that which was properly speaking foreshore could not be turned to any profitable account unless an Act of Parliament were obtained to sanction the appropriation?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, no part of the foreshore can be diverted from its present uses to the injury of the public without the previous consent of Parliament. I understand the landowners made the offer of 2,600 acres at 2s. 6d. per acre, leaving it open to the Corporation to take the whole or any part of it.

  COUNTY GOVERNMENT (IRELAND)— THE GRAND JURY PANELS, 1882–3.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the measure promised for the establishment of County Government in Ireland founded on representative principles, he will have any objection to procure and lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Grand Jury Panels for the Spring and Summer Assizes, 1882 and 1883, and a Return showing the amount of property for which each grand juror appears rated for the relief of the poor, and liable for the payment of county cess; and a similar Return as to the property of one hundred of the largest cesspayers in the order of rating whose names do not appear on the Grand Jury Panels?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I will offer no objection on the part of the Government

  1741
  to the Returns of which the hon. Member has given Notice for to-day. The Returns which the hon. Member asks about will impose a good deal of labour on secretaries to grand juries and clerks of unions; but the Returns will be of interest and value.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE MAYOR OF WEXFORD.
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at a court of petty sessions held in the borough of Wexford on last Wednesday, a magistrate prevented the mayor of the borough from taking the chair, and stated that legal opinion had been obtained that the mayor was not entitled to take the chair; whether such opinion was obtained at the instance or cost of the Crown; and, if so, whether he will lay such opinion and the case sent to counsel upon the Table; whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Crown prosecutor told the mayor that his conduct was indecent; and, whether the Crown intends to take notice of such language addressed by a Crown official, in open court, to a magistrate?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the legal opinion referred to was, I believe, one given in the year 1876 to the then Mayor of Wexford by the Law Adviser to the Castle. No other opinion was, so far as I am aware, given or obtained. I cannot undertake to produce either case or opinion, as it has never been the practice to do so. The Crown Prosecutor stated that it would be indecent for the Mayor to be examined as a witness, as he professed his intention of being, and, at the same time, ask questions at the trial. The Resident Magistrate remarked that such a course would not be in good taste, which, I think, is a better expression than indecent. The Mayor refrained from taking the course which had been objected to. I do not think it necessary to take further notice of the matter.

  IRELAND—THE NATIONAL LEAGUE— INFLAMMATORY SPEECHES.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has
  1742
  been called to the violent language which has been used at some of the recent meetings of the National League; and, whether he can give the House any assurance that a continuance of speeches of a disloyal and menacing nature will not be permitted during the Recess?
  MR. SEXTONsaid, before the right hon. Gentleman answered that Question he wished to ask Mr. Speaker whether there was not a Standing Order, No. 154, which declared that no Member was allowed to put a Question as to a matter of opinion; and whether the epithets "violence," "disloyal and menacing" did not come under that Rule?
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot say it appears to me to be a Question which is out of Order; yet, as it may be matter involving controversy, I think the epithets "violence," "disloyal and menacing" might well be struck out.
  MR. HEALYwished to ask whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to the following language, which appeared in an English provincial newspaper, The Gloucester Journal:—
  "Ireland is rapidly going to the dogs. Her political fortunes are directed by a hypocrite, who is also a blood-guilty tyrant and a conspirator against the honour of the country. This hateful and atrocious Gladstone, who' were flattery to call a rascal, has associated with him in the Government incompetent nobodies, who, partly through ignorance and partly through malice, are betraying every British interest. About the only conspirator with any brains is a fellow named Chamberlain, who makes screws or something at Birmingham, and who has been in league with the Irish rebels, and incited them to get up murderous outrages as an excuse for robbing landlords by an iniquitous system of spoliation. The people of the country are afflicted with a great dementia which prevents them from realizing the odious character of their political Leaders and the imminent perils into which these pernicious adventurers have brought our beloved country. The populace, lulled into false security, are looking forward to peace and prosperity; but a very different period is being prepared for us by the strangest of philosophers and geniuses that were ever allowed to touch the helm of affairs."
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that before the Chief Secretary answered the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman), he desired to ask him whether his attention had been called to the following language of the hon. and gallant Member himself in the report of a meeting in the Rotunda on February 10—

  1743
  "He could look tack with pride, and even sympathy, to those who in the days of old carried the flag of rebellion in Ireland."
  ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: It appears to me that the Question now being put, as well as the Question already put by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), has no bearing on the Question of the hon. and gallant Member.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question which would have a distinct bearing on the Question of the hon. and gallant Member. He wished to ask the Chief Secretary whether, if in his reply he adopted the adjectives used by the hon. and gallant Member, he would state the particular meetings at which this language was spoken, and also name the speeches in which violent and disloyal language was used?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Well, Sir, my reply will not raise, I think, any of the points referred to in recent Questions. I can only say, in reference to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, that it is not convenient to make general announcements of the course the Government will adopt in a hypothetical case, and the latter part of the Question is hypothetical. The probable action of the Executive in future may be gathered from observation of its action in the past.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— COUNTY INSPECTOR PENNINGTON.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the 12th of July, an Orange triumphal arch was erected across the main street in the town of Omagh; whether this arch was suspended from one of the windows of Mr. Pennington, County Inspector of Royal Irish Constabulary; and, if such conduct is approved of; and, if not, what course he intends to take to mark his disapproval?
  MR. TREVELYAN: A rope, with some Orange emblems attached, was hung across the road on the 12th of July at Omagh. One end of it was suspended from a waterpipe outside a house in which the County Inspector had temporary lodgings, but which was not in his occupation, and from which he has since removed to a house of his own. The rope was put up after the County
  1744
  Inspector had left the house in the morning, and he knew nothing about it.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked whether it was a fact that the rope was suspended by four men who were admitted by the servants of the County Inspector, and who passed through his house for the purpose?
  [No answer was given to this Question.]

  SPAIN—EXPULSION OF CERTAIN CUBAN REFUGEES PROM GIBRALTAR—THE CORRESPONDENCE.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (for Mr. O'KELLY)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will have made a correct translation of the Letter from the Governor of Cadiz to the Spanish Consul at Gibraltar, which appears at the head of page 66 in the "Correspondence respecting the expulsion of certain Cuban Refugees from Gibraltar," presented to both Houses of Parliament in December 1882; and, whether he will issue the corrected translation as an additional Paper?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: This Question should have been asked of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, by whom the Correspondence in question was laid on the Table of this House. If the hon. Member will refer to page 50 of the same Blue Book he will find a better translation of the letter to which he refers. I will, however, communicate with my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject.

  SOUTH AFRICA—TRANSVAAL— MAPOCH'S AND MAMPORI'S TRIBES.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any, and, if so, what, answer has been received to the inquiry which he stated, on the 2nd of this month, had been sent to the British Resident in the Transvaal, with regard to the statement, since confirmed, that Mapoch's and Mampori's Tribes have been broken up, and their people indentured to the Boer farmers; and, whether he can inform the House whether any, and, if so, what action the Government has taken in the matter?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, I stated in the debate on the Transvaal Vote the telegraphic answer we had received as to this; but I will repeat it

  1745
  in more detail. The British Resident said—
  "The following seems to be the outline of the action contemplated by the Transvaal Government:—(1) The general principle is dispersal of the tribe; (2) indentures are to be for three years."
  I may here interpolate that a later telegram says that they are to be for five years—
  "Families are not to be separated. The general conditions of the indentures are to be similar to those under which the tribe of Masseleroon were distributed by the Transvaal Provincial Government during the English occupancy; (3) at the termination of the indentures those who have conducted themselves well, and may wish it, will be located at such place, or places, as may be decided on by the Government at the time being. With these exceptions, the prisoners of war will now be dealt with generally in accordance with the principles of the legislation for Natives during the time of English occupancy, and the Volksraad is now considering the general subject. Mapoch and Mampori have arrived here at Pretoria, and are in prison. They will be tried by the High Court."
  We immediately sent a telegram expressing our views; but as they are embodied in the despatch dated the 18th of August, which followed, I will only give the substance of the despatch. After expressing satisfaction at learning that the Chiefs are to be tried by the High Court, and not by the Kriegsraad, the despatch proceeds to protest against the long indentures of five years, and urges that they should only be made for one year in the first instance. It refers to the despatches of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach in 1879, with reference to the case of the indenturing at Cape Town of Natives taken in the Frontier wars as embodying equally the views of Her Majesty's present Government. It then proceeds to notice the justification put forward by the Transvaal Government that their course is only based on Sir Theophilus Shepstone's action in the case of the Masseleroon Tribe. It points out that if that action had been reported home at the time it certainly would have been disavowed by the Home Government. It then proceeds to quote the words of the Volksraad condemning the British action in this Masseleroon case as equally and even more condemnatory of their own proposed action. This despatch is to be communicated to the Transvaal Government.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, whether the Boers would be able, at
  1746
  their will, to flog those indentured Natives as they had been in the habit of flogging all the Natives within their Borders?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No, Sir. As I understand they will be ostensibly under indenture; and so long as the tribes are dispersed no particular locality is selected.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked, whether it was from any terms in the despatch or any information that the hon. Gentleman used the word "voluntary." Were they to understand that these Natives, who were indentured, were to choose the persons to whom they would be indentured?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir; because the justification is that the Transvaal base their action upon our action in the Masseleroon case, in which event the Natives were allowed to choose their own employers.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain, as quickly as possible, whether the indenturing is voluntary or not?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir I will.

  SOUTH AFRICA—BECHUANALAND.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, as the Session is about to close, he can give the House any information as to the present position of the Bechuana Chiefs and people who have been despoiled of their lands?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: We have received very little information lately respecting the state of things in Bechuanaland. In Stellaland and Mankoroane's country there seems a lull and no movement. He apparently retains all his cultivated and ploughing lands, and it is only his veldt or hunting ground that is occupied by the intruders. To the North, however, in Montsioa's country, there appears to be a stir in the way of an advance on Moshette and his Boer allies. The following is what we have received through the Cape from Mr. Bethell, who resides with Montsioa:—
  "Telegram, Bethell, Barolong Agent, Molapo, dated July 16, received July 27—Montsioa now desires me to inform His Excellency that he and his allies have written to the freebooters of the so-called Land of Goshen, ordering them to leave his country, and that they have, as I anticipated in my second telegram to His Excellency from Kimberley, retired upon the

  1747
  Transvaal Border, and are some within and some without that State."
  The High Commissioner, on receipt of this, telegraphed as follows to Pretoria:—
  "Information has reached us that hostilities are about to be renewed between Montsioa and the freebooters established in the so-called Land of Goshen. I hope that yon will impress on the Transvaal Government the duty of maintaining the neutrality of its territory, and of preventing persons from using the Transvaal as a base from which to renew hostile operations."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked at what time the telegram reached the Cape?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, it was received on the 27th of July.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that, having been received at the Cape on the 27th of July, the information came here by letter. Could not his hon. Friend secure that important telegrams should be sent home by telegraph from the Cape, instead of taking three or four weeks to come?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYreplied, that to send telegrams on all occasions would be very expensive. The telegram to which attention had been drawn was not a message asking for instructions. The Governor of the Colony was instructed to telegraph all news which he thought important.
  MR. W.E. FORSTERsaid, his reason for asking the Question was because the statement of his hon. Friend was that the position "is" so and so; whereas the position really "was" so and so a month ago.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the hon. Gentleman had received any confirmation of the reported advance of Mankoroane at the head of 2,000 men?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that he had given the House all the information he could.

  PRISONS BOARD (IRELAND)—DR. MINCHIN.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware of the reasons which have caused the General Prisons Board (Ireland) to refuse the ordinary leave of absence to Dr. Humphrey Minchin; and, whether he is aware that the Prisons Board is endeavouring to oblige Dr. Minchin to perform duties which are regarded by him as in excess of those to which he was appointed?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, he was aware that the reason for the refusal had reference to a difference of opinion that had arisen between the General Prisons Board and Dr. Minchin as to the extent of his duties, and the substitute to be provided in his absence. The legal Question involved was at this moment before the Law Officers of the Crown.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked if this was the sole reason?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was not quite certain. He believed it had reference to the duties which the substitute might be required to perform in his absence.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he assumed that leave had been deferred, and not refused.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, it had not been refused definitely. Until this point had been cleared up the matter could not be settled. He rather thought it had been cleared up.

  THE SUEZ CANAL—REPRINTS OF PAPERS.
  MR. FRESHFIELDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can explain how it happened that, in reprinting the Papers relating to the Suez Canal, under the Order of the House of the 16th July last, the Convention between the Khedive of Egypt and M. Ferdinand de Lesseps of the 23rd April, 1869, which was one of the documents comprised among the Papers ordered to be reprinted, was excluded from the Papers actually returned, and laid upon the Table of the House; whether the Convention so omitted contained an article in French to the subjoined effect:—Art. 3. By consent of both parties it is understood that the Company has no other object but the working, management, and development of the Maritime Canal. It therefore returns to the common rights, and renounces every exceptional faculty or special privilege; whether, by subsequent articles in the same Convention, the Company cedes to the Khedive lands dependent on the Canal, and other properties; and, whether, in consideration of these arrangements, the Khedive paid to the Company the sum of thirty millions of francs in the manner set forth, the receipt of which was acknowledged under the hand of M. Ferdinand de Lesseps?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the Paper referred to was not laid by the Foreign Office as a Command Paper, but was a reprint, ordered by the House, of a portion of Parliamentary Paper C. 1,416 of 1876, in accordance with an undertaking given on the 13th of July by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would cause to be reprinted the documents he had quoted in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon. The Convention of April 23, 1869, is in the original Blue Book, of which I placed 10 copies in the Library of the House.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that there was an Order of the House that the Paper relating to the Suez Canal, "Egypt, No. 6, 1876," presented on the 17th February, 1876, should be reprinted. He wished to ask the Speaker whether, in response to an Order of that kind, a Public Department was entitled to furnish a portion of those Papers only?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that he was not responsible for the omission of the Paper in question. The information which he had given was information which he had obtained, out of respect to the hon. Member, from the Authorities of the House. He was responsible only for the original Papers which were laid on the Table.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER (Mr. GUILDERS)said, that if anyone was responsible for the printing of the Papers he was. He was asked some time ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon upon what documents a certain statement was founded, and he quoted the documents in question. He was then asked whether the Government would consent to reprint those particular Papers which formed part of a Blue Book, and he assented. No formal Motion was made on the subject, and the Clerks at the Table took down what passed with a view to the reprint of the Papers he had named. The particular Papers which the Government were asked to reprint were accordingly reprinted, and he had thus fulfilled his pledge. It was well understood at the time that it would not be convenient to reprint the whole Blue Book, as this would have involved delay.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether it was not a breach of Privilege,
  1750
  when a Return was ordered to be made by the House, to make what was practically a falsified Return? He maintained that the present Return deserved that epithet, because the full Papers were not given.
  MR. SPEAKER: The point is not strictly one of Order. The Question of the hon. Gentleman I cannot possibly answer without an examination of the Papers, and I have not examined them. Whether the Order of the House has been obeyed fully or not is a matter for the consideration of the House.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Is not a Question of this kind a Question of Privilege?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was a question of fact if the Order of the House had been obeyed, and was for the House to consider.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFgave Notice that he should draw attention to the matter on the Motion for the Third Beading of the Appropriation Bill.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not disclose a very gross irregularity—namely, that without Motion made, and simply on a note taken by the Clerk at the Table, certain Papers had been printed, and distributed as Parliamentary Papers?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Question was not one for the Chair to determine. If the House should think that a Member had not acted as he ought towards it, the matter could be made the subject of a Motion.
  MR. FRESHFIELDasked how it was that a Return, which purported to be a Return of the Papers marked "Egypt, No. 6, 1876," did not contain all the Papers in that Blue Book.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUEE (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he was very sorry if he was supposed to have done anything irregular. All he had to do in the matter was to see that his promise that certain Papers should be reprinted was carried out, and that he had done. Having named some particular Papers in his reply to a Question, he was asked whether they might be reprinted, and he replied that he would have no objection, if they were worth reprinting, and he undertook to see that this was done. He had nothing to do with the words of the Motion ordering the reprint.
  MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, that the Return which had been made was not in accordance with the Order of the House. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend to complete the Return? He asked that Question, because he knew that great inconvenience had resulted in consequence of the nonappearance of all the Papers. Everyone was most anxious to know what the real facts were. [Cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he must repeat that he was not responsible for the Motion for the reprint. All he was responsible for was seeing that the Papers he quoted from were reprinted, and that had been done. He had no objection whatever to the rest of the Papers being reprinted, nor, so far as he was aware, had anyone else; and the only question which arose at the time was the delay which would be occasioned if the whole were reprinted.
  MR. FRESHFIELD: The document omitted is a Convention of the utmost importance, by which M. de Lesseps renounced exclusive rights in the Isthmus of Suez. [Cries of "Order!"]
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I wish to ask whether, considering the document that was suppressed was one—— [Cries of"Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER,interposing, observed that the hon. Member was now referring to a matter of controversy.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will reprint the whole of those Papers, including the Convention tending to show that M. de Lesseps had no exclusive monopoly?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDEES): The hon. Member imports into his Question a matter of controversy on which I say nothing; but I shall arrange with my noble Friend that the whole of the Papers shall be reprinted.

  MINES REGULATION ACTS-EXPLOSIONS IN MINES.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOT (for Mr. TATTOTT EGERTON)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the Gelli Colliery explosion, and whether he is aware that on September 11th 1882 a similar explosion took place, due
  1752
  to the use of naked lights, in which loss of life took place, and whether he has read the report of Mr. Wales (mining inspector), page 241, with the strong recommendation it gives; whether his attention has been called to Mr. Bell's report of the compressed lime cartridges, showing they possess all the advantages of gunpowder with absolute absence of danger; and, whether, next Session, with the Report of the Royal Commission on Mining Accidents before him, he will legislate to forbid the use of naked lights, gunpowder, or other spark-producing compounds?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, the Report of this particular accident had not yet reached him. With reference to the part of the Question relating to the use of naked lights, he had for a long time been pressing upon Inspectors of Mines the desirability of enforcing, as they had the power to enforce, the use of closed lamps wherever they thought open lamps unsafe. He did not believe that fresh legislation was necessary. The Inspectors had power to insist upon arbitration, and the result of such recent arbitrations had been to compel the use of closed lamps. Unfortunately, the principal opposition to the use of such lamps came from the miners themselves, in whose interests the precaution was taken. The other day an indignant deputation of miners from South Wales waited upon him and remonstrated against being compelled to use closed lamps. He told them that, on the evidence before him, it was necessary for the safety of their lives to insist on the rule requiring the use of closed lamps. He believed that the instructions he had given to the Inspectors would have the effect of enforcing the use of closed lamps without recourse to further legislation. He could give no opinion about the use of lime cartridges, as he was not sufficiently well acquainted with their character.

  INDIA—NATIVE CIVIL SERVANTS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he can state how many, if any, of the Natives of India, appointed under the Act 33 Vic. c. 3, to offices previously reserved to the Covenanted Civil Service, are really men of "proved merit
  1753
  and ability," (as provided by the Statute) who have proved these qualities by action in the public service; and, whether most of the Natives so appointed to the Civil Service under Lord Lytton's rules are young gentlemen selected by pure patronage, with no other proved merit and ability than assurances that they are promising or well-connected young men?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Natives of India appointed to the Civil Service under the Statutory Rules—framed in exercise of the powers given by 33 Viet., c. 3, s. 6—are nominated by the Local Governments subject to the approval of the Governor General in Council. The appointments being entirely in the hands of the Local Governments, the Secretary of State is not informed as to the particular qualifications of the gentlemen who are from time to time appointed. Every appointment is in the first instance provisional, the nominee being on probation for at least two years. No one is finally admitted into the service until the Local Government has reported to the Government of India that he has acquitted himself satisfactorily during his term of probation, and has passed all the prescribed examinations. The Rules also provide that no one can be nominated for employment if more than 25 years of age, except on grounds of merit and ability proved in the service of Government, or in the practice of a profession, clearly indicating that men of proved merit and ability can be appointed.
  In answer to a further Question by Mr. MACFARLANE,
  MR. J. K. CROSS: It certainly is not intended to invest anyone with jurisdiction over Europeans who has not a perfect knowledge of the English language.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Under Secretary of State for India whether it was the new measure, or the Act of 1833, which laid down the position that a knowledge of the English language should be a necessary qualification?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The now offices about to be conferred will depend upon the will of the Viceroy, who would never think of appointing, in any circumstances, anyone who did not understand English.

  TUNIS—THE BOMBARDMENT OF SFAX.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any compensation has as yet been given by the French Government to British subjects who suffered damage to their persons or property by the bombardment of Sfax?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The latest information received on this subject by the Foreign Office is to the effect that Her Majesty's Agents and Consul General in Tunis had arranged with the French Resident for the payment of compensation to British subjects in accordance with the assessment made by the Sfax Indemnity Commission. The actual payment has, however, not yet been reported.

  POST OFFICE—THE PARCEL POST— RURAL LETTER CARRIERS.
  MR. WADDYasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has come to any decision with regard to allowing rural letter carriers to continue to carry, as they did before the introduction of the Parcels Post, small parcels of medicine; and, if he will consider whether any arrangements can be made to allow parcels to be collected in the rural districts from persons who reside at a distance from a Post Office?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, so many applications have reached me from different parts of the country in favour of rural letter carriers being allowed to carry, as they did before the introduction of the Parcel Post, light packets of medicine, that I am glad to state that I have been able to decide to grant permission for the continuance of the practice, and instructions to this effect will be given immediately. I should regret extremely if this permission should be in any way abused by sending as packets of medicine articles which are not medicine, because it would then be necessary to withdraw the permission. With regard to the second Question of my hon. and learned Friend, I am aware that the non-collection by rural letter carriers on their round of parcels for the post has caused inconvenience to many persons in the rural districts who happen to live at a considerable distance from any post office. The chief reason for the prohibition is the fear that the

  1755
  collection of parcels might cause the letter carriers to be overburdened, and might also lead to a delay in the delivery of letters. Within the last few days I have, with the assistance of some of the most experienced practical officers of the Department, been carefully considering the point; and I shall be very glad if it is found possible to meet the inconvenience complained of without incurring the risk of the letter carriers being overburdened, or the mails being delayed.

  ANNAM—THE FRENCH INVASION.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the French have taken the capital of Ann am; and, whether he can give any other information as to the progress of the French invasion in Annam?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the Foreign Office have no intelligence of the capture of the capital of Annam by the French; and, as the House has already been informed, they have no special information as to the progress of the French invasion.

  NAVY—OFFICERS OF THE ROYAL MARINES.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Officers of the Royal Marine Light Infantry, who have not succeeded in the competition for the Royal Marine Artillery, have been drafted into the latter corps over the heads of candidates who have succeeded in the competition; and, whether steps will be taken to remedy the hardship thus inflicted on those who have obtained their appointment to the Royal Marine Artillery by passing successfully the competitive standard established for that corps?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Of the nine probationary lieutenants of the Royal Marine Artillery who presented themselves for the final examination this year only one passed—Mr. L. E. Gordon, of seniority 1st of September, 1881. It being necessary to provide officers for the Marine Artillery, the Admiralty appointed a Committee to consider whether any of the candidates who had passed through the College during the last three years, but failed to reach the standard for the Artillery, might
  1756
  be admitted with advantage to the Service. Five officers have been appointed on the recommendation of the Committee. The seniority of two of them is the 1st of September, 1880; and, therefore, they could not have been placed below Mr. Gordon, who sustains some slight disadvantage owing to a measure considered necessary for the public interest.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER ACT—THE SOUTHPORT FORESHORE.
  MR. CHEETHAMasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether memorials have been addressed to him by upwards of one hundred Municipal Corporations and Local Governing Bodies, including Manchester, Birmingham, Derby, Salford, Brighton, Huddersfield, and other places, deprecating, in the public interest, the sale to private persons of the property of the Crown in the Southport foreshore; and, whether, in view of these manifestations of public opinion, Her Majesty's Government will undertake that no such alienation of the rights possessed by the Crown in foreshores and other lands shall in future be sanctioned without an opportunity being afforded to this House of expressing its judgment thereon?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, at my right hon. Friend's request, I will answer this Question. We have received a considerable number of Memorials; but they all appear to have been based upon some misapprehension of the facts of the case. The Memorialists do not seem to have been aware that the title of the Duchy to the foreshore in question was disputed by the persons to whom the Duchy has sold its interest. Moreover, they seem not to be aware that the rights of the public over the foreshore remain unaffected by any change of ownership, and that they cannot be interfered with without the consent of Parliament previously obtained.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  MR. STEVENSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will take into consideration during the Recess the necessity of amending the Rules of the House so as to give increased facilities for the consideration of Bills of great public importance which are in charge of private Members, either by the selection

  1757
  of such Bills by a vote of the House, or otherwise, so that the Bills thus selected shall have precedence of other Bills in the hands of private Members?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, my hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House, by this Question, to a matter which is of very great importance, but of a difficulty, perhaps, equal to its importance. It is, I think, a suggestion that some organization and machinery should be provided by which a preference may be established in favour of particular measures deemed to be urgent among the measures in the hands of independent Members, and, of course, more or less to the prejudice of other measures in the hands of independent Members. That is a subject of great importance and considerable delicacy, and one in regard to which it is obvious that there ought to be no habitual interference by the Executive Government. Whether the Executive Government ought to take the initiative in making the recommendation I do not know; it is a matter on which I do not give a positive opinion. There is much to be said in favour of the view suggested by my hon. Friend. I believe the practice of Foreign Legislatures is to some considerable extent in support of that view; and it is a matter which the Government will endeavour to consider, though I cannot absolutely—such are the difficulties that surround the question—give a positive answer as to the results.
  MR. PARNELLasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that under the proposal of the hon. Member in all probability no Irish Bill would ever have an opportunity of being brought forward?
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplated, as the Representative of the Government, that the selection of the Bills should be committed to the House itself or reserved to the Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The one thing I have said which is clear—and there are many things I have said which are not clear—about the matter is that the Government ought to have nothing to do with it in the event of a selection being established. I will also say, in answer to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that he seems to think there is some positive plan in view. There is no plan in view. I may say
  1758
  that no plan could for a moment be entertained by this House which would not be perfectly impartial with reference to the proceedings of the different parts of the House.

  METROPOLIS—STATE OF THE THAMES.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, Whether he can inform the House when the Report of the Royal Commission on the state of the Thames between London Bridge and the lower river will be presented?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that, owing to the absence of the Royal Commissioners, he was unable to state when their Report would be presented.

  MADAGASCAR—THE FRENCH AT TAMATAYE-CASE OF THE REV. MR. SHAW.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have learnt, either from the London Missionary Society or from any other source, that Mr. Shaw is absolutely prevented from all communication of any kind with persons outside the vessel on which he is imprisoned; whether any communication has been received by any person in this Country direct from Mr. Shaw; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government can state the nature of such communication; whether Her Majesty's Government have been informed by the French Government of the nature of the charges on which Mr. Shaw is imprisoned, and if such charges contain anything more serious than an attempt on the part of Mr. Shaw and other Europeans to organize an ambulance society, under the Red Cross, for the relief of the wounded; and, further, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken, considering the strictness of Mr. Shaw's imprisonment, to obtain for him access to counsel to defend him on his trial?
  MR. GLADSTONE: This Question links together inconveniently the matters connected with Mr. Shaw, and I will go over the points to which the hon. Member refers, dealing strictly, in the first place, with matters of fact. With regard to the first part of the Question, we have no information of any kind. Our information, it must be remembered, is scanty, and is not recent; but no communication

  1759
  was allowed by the French Admiral with Mr. Shaw by any person outside the vessel, as far as our information goes. With regard to the second part of the Question, of course we cannot say what communication may have been received; but no communication has been received to our knowledge from Mr. Shaw by any person in this country since the date of his arrest. With respect to the third part of the Question, I stated on a former evening the general effect of the information which we had received from the French Government. As to the nature of the charges against Mr. Shaw, we have never heard a word in any document which has reached us about an attempt having been made by Mr. Shaw and other Europeans to organize an Ambulance Society for the relief of the wounded. No such thing has been included in what the French Government told us with respect to these charges. With regard to the latter part of the Question, we have communicated fully with the French Government on that subject and pretty constantly; and the French Government, of course, like ourselves, labour under the disadvantage of a want of all rapid communication. We have no telegraphic communication with Madagascar; the French also are considerably embarrassed by the want of it; but, in addition to the assurances that were given by M. Waddington, and which were, I admit, quite of a general character, M. Waddington has been authorized by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to assure Lord Granville and the English Government that the French Government will not only give, as a matter of course, every facility to Mr. Shaw for his defence, but, generally speaking—and this is an important declaration if it be given and if it be received, as I have no doubt it has been given and will be received, in an equitable spirit—that they will do everything in their power to put an end to this incident. That is by far the best thing I can state in the absence of any specific information. In these circumstances we have considered, obtaining light of the general practice as well as we can, what are the proper limits of action on the part of the British Government, and it would be beyond all doubt quite proper that we should instruct our Agents as speedily as we can to ascertain for themselves whether Mr. Shaw is in
  1760
  possession of those facilities, and to lend whatever aid may be found necessary—if it is found necessary—to enable him to secure this assistance.

  HARBOURS OF REFUGE—DOVER HARBOUR.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will obtain and furnish the Papers referred to (in C. 3,726) relating to Dover, excluding the Reports of the Committees and Commissions previously laid upon the Table of the House; if he will obtain specific information as to the number of acres of varying depths of water within the Harbour area, and furnish a rough plan showing the length of the breakwaters and arms forming the proposed Dover Harbour, and an estimate of cost of constructing the separate portions in the way stated in the former plans of 1840 to 1847; if he will procure a Statement of the income to be expected, and the rate of interest which that income will provide, on the capital to be invested for making this Harbour; and, finally, if the information now asked for can be made available for use during the Recess, so as to facilitate criticisms on this proposed Harbour?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he was afraid he could not answer in any detail this Question. As to the Papers referred to, he should be happy to consult with the hon. and gallant Member. No definite plan for the extension of Dover Harbour had yet been placed before Parliament; but, roughly speaking, the number of acres of varying depths of water within the harbour area was 145. A statement as to the income to be expected would be laid before Parliament before Parliament was asked to vote the money for the harbour.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked whether the House, having voted £16,000 for the purpose of building a prison at Dover to lodge the convicts who are to execute the Dover Harbour Works, was committed or not to the execution of the works at Dover Harbour?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that they were all agreed there should be some harbour at Dover. He was not a naval or a military man, nor even the Board of Trade, and it was only his business to employ the convicts,

  1761
  and the harbour at Dover seemed to him to be a good method in which they could be employed. The House was not pledged to any particular form of the harbour; and it might be made larger or smaller, as the House chose, when the full plan was laid before it.

  LICENSING (METROPOLIS)—SPORTING NEWS—BETTING.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the police in the Metropolis have been threatening licensed victuallers with opposition to their licences at the annual meeting, unless they at once give up the receipt of general, sporting, Parliamentary, and Stock Exchange news by the Automatic News-transmitting Instrument (such as is in use in Clubs), and for which a considerable annual payment is made; whether, in one of the instances referred to, the police went through the premises, taking down the names and addresses of persons found there; whether he will state by whoso authority these proceedings take place; and, whether he will sanction their continuance?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he had a Report from the police on this subject. It was the duty of the police to put down betting houses; and in consequence of reports from Superintendents of the various divisions and complaints of inhabitants that a number of licensed victuallers were violating the letter and spirit of the law, the Commissioners directed that licence-holders should be cautioned that if facilities for betting were given by means of these instruments, steps would be taken by summary proceedings before the magistrates, or by opposing the renewal of the licences, as circumstances might warrant. That seemed to him to be a very proper proceeding.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked if what the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant was that public-houses were not to be forbidden having telegraphic communication, provided it was not converted into machinery for betting.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes, Sir. If public-houses wish for telegraphic communication, to report, for instance, the proceedings of this House, they will not be interfered with. But
  1762
  the telegraphic instruments must not be made the means of betting.
  MR. HOPWOOD: If they do not give up the use of these instruments, will they be opposed at the next Sessions?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, Sir; only if they are used as a means of betting?

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—SUPPLY OF STATUTES AND PUBLIC PAPERS.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, as the Office of Law Adviser to the Castle had been abolished, he would give directions that copies of all Irish Acts of Parliament and Castle Circulars should be sent to each Resident Magistrate?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER),in reply, said, that he had no power to make any such order; but he should make it his business to inquire into the matter, and see whether anything could be done.

  ARTIZANS' DWELLINGS IN LARGE TOWNS.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he would, during the Recess, consider some scheme for proposal next Session with regard to providing better accommodation for the working people of the great towns?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This subject is one of the very greatest consequence, and I should be very happy to give all the attention I can to it, and consider whether any adequate means can be discovered for forwarding such an object.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he should call attention to the subject next Session.

  CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)—SUNDAY TRADING—THE STROME FERRY CASE.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he had observed some comments in the Scotch Press on the Home Secretary not having answered a portion of a former Question of his with regard to the Strome Ferryrioters. He now wished to ask the right hon, and learned Gentleman whether it was a fact that these men had their hair cropped and were being treated as common felons?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have no special information on this subject. The men will be treated, I presume, as ordinary prisoners under the sentence of the law, and there will be no distinction made between them and other prisoners.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Are they treated as pick-pockets and wife-beaters are treated?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No distinction.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: As Mr. Harrington is treated?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question of the hon. Member (Mr. Macfarlane) has been put and answered.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)— SEWER VENTILATORS.
  MR. J. G.TALBOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will draw the attention of the local authorities of the Metropolis to the necessity of attending carefully to the sewer ventilators in the streets, with a view to prevent as far as possible the exhalations frequently issuing therefrom; and, whether his attention has been called to a plan which has been tried with apparent success in the town of Ryde, under high engineering sanction, for rendering the ventilation of the sewers inoffensive, and yet effective?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, he should answer the Question; but there was really no jurisdiction at all.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he put the Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, then, I reply that I have no authority. Neither the Local Government Board nor the Home Office have any authority in this matter. It seems to be the idea that we have the government of London in our hands. We have not; and we cannot be held responsible for it, The sewers of the Metropolis are vested either in the Commissioners of Sewers, the Metropolitan Board of Works, or the Local Vestries or District Boards. In fact, they are in the hands of 40 or 50 different Bodies, and Government have no power in any way of compelling those Bodies to take any course whatever with reference to the sewers.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, with reference to the second part of the Question, that the Mayor of Ryde
  1764
  had a scheme of his own for ventilating sewers, which had been tried as an experiment in that town; but the Town Council had not approved of the scheme. The Chief Sanitary Inspector of the Local Government Board, the highest authority on the subject of sewers in the world, had said that no system of ventilating sewers was so effective as the existing open grate system.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)— THREATENING LETTERS.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENwished to ask the Chief Secretary a Question in reference to the proceedings on Saturday last, when a statement was made by the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) regarding certain outrages. The Committee understood that a woman accused of theft, and then in prison, confessed to having committed various incendiary fires, and written various threatening letters; that the charge against her had been withdrawn; and that she had disappeared from the district. His right hon. Friend was not able then to confirm those statements, but promised to make inquiries. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had since made those inquiries?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have made inquiries, and I will confine myself absolutely to the points about which I was unable to give information to the House. It was confidently believed by a certain number of Members that Mary Grehan confessed to writing threatening letters for which the parishes of Bally-boggan and Castle Jordan were proclaimed. I have now ascertained the facts. Mary Grehan pleaded "Guilty," on the 6th of March, 1882, to the charge of writing threatening letters; and the Judge allowed her to stand out on her own recognizances to come up for judgment when called on. It was after this that every one of the 13 outrages occurred to which I referred as having been the cause of the district being proclaimed. These outrages included two shootings into houses, two incendiary fires, the shooting of a sheep, and the shooting of a mule, killed while it was being driven in a car by a man who was "Boycotted," the rest being threatening letters.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether all these outrages

  1765
  had not been predicted in the threatening letters?
  [No answer was given to this Question.]

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—PROCLAMATIONS—LOUTH AND DROGHEDA.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, considering the peaceable condition of the county of Louth and the county of the town of Drogheda, as evidenced by the calendar of prisoners and the charges of the going Judges of Assize and Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, both as regards offences against person and against property, and the statements of—1. Mr. Justice Andrews, at the Summer Assizes for the county of the town of Drogheda, that—
  "He was happy to find, from the information given him by the resident magistrate and the constabulary returns, that the condition of the town was that of an orderly and peaceable community;"
  2. The Chairman of Quarter Sessions, in June last, at Dundalk, addressing the Grand Jury, said—
  "As far as I can hear, the county has been in a very quiet state since my last visit;"
  and 3. At the Summer Assizes for the county of Louth, Mr. Justice Andrews, in charging the Grand Jury, said—
  "I find that there are no Bills to go before you at the present Assizes, while only yesterday the County Court Judge concluded his sittings, and I understood he had only one case to go before him. Under these circumstances, I am very happy to tender you my sincere congratulations on the peaceable and orderly state of your county,"
  on which occasion Sir John Robinson, foreman of the Grand Jury, in presenting white gloves to the going Judge, said—
  "It was a happy state of affairs that nothing had occurred to mar the peace and quietness that prevailed in the county of Louth,"
  whereon Mr. Justice Andrews, in accepting the white gloves, said—
  "It was very gratifying to him to accept those white gloves, as an emblem of the peaceable state of the county, upon which he had taken the opportunity of congratulating them, and, through them, the community at large;"
  and, whether, in view of these circumstances, he is prepared to remove the Proclamation of the county of Louth
  1766
  and the county of the town of Drogheda?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Government are gratified at the peaceful state of the county of Louth; and the question of removing the Proclamation has for some time past been under their consideration. I hope that a decision will be come to in the course of a few days. I do not think the county of the town of Drogheda stands quite on the same footing, as the Government consider it necessary to maintain safeguards against any undue importation of arms into the country. The matter is, however, also under consideration.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PUBLIC HEALTH (DAIRIES, &c.) BILL.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it was intended to proceed with the Public Health (Dairies, &c.) Bill, which had come from the Lords, and stood for a second reading? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would now move that the Order be discharged.
  SIR CHARITES W. DILKE: It is not a Local Government Board Bill—it is a Privy Council Bill.
  MR. DODSON: I cannot agree that it is not a Local Government Board Bill—it is more of that than a Privy Council Bill. However, looking to the period of the Session, I have no option but to consent that the Order be discharged.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  FRANCE—THE FRENCH PYRENEES— SUPPOSED CASUALTY TO THE REV. MERTON SMITH.
  MR. MONTAGU SCOTTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If there was any further information regarding the Rev Morton Smith, who disappeared mysteriously in Spain?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, nothing could be definitely ascertained regarding the rev. gentleman, whose case had excited such a painful sensation. Instructions had been given that every effort should be made to obtain information; but he was bound to say that nearly all hope of his being alive had been given up.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND BILL).— [BILL 306.]
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND BILL).— [BILL 306.]

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' REASON AND AMENDMENT.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he rose to move, in accordance with what he believed was the usual practice, that the Lords Reason and Amendment to the Commons' Amendments be forthwith considered.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords' Reason and Amendment to the Commons' Amendments be considered forthwith,"—(Mr. Dodson,)—put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment,
    "Provided, That no compensation shall he claimed under this section for any improvement where the agreement fixing the rent was made on the express or implied condition that such improvement should he executed by the tenant,' '
    proposed in lieu of the Proviso in page 2, line 11, read a second time.
    MR. DODSON: I have to move that this House disagree with the Lords in their Amendment as amended. The wording of it does not appear to me to be very clear. I confess I do not know what is meant by "agreement fixing the rent" in contradistinction to a contract of tenancy, the other expression used in the clause. If it only refers to the case where the tenant, in consideration of his engaging to make an improvement, has obtained a lower rent, which I presume is the intention, then the case is sufficiently covered by Clause 6; and to insert this particular Proviso in this case would only be misleading, and likely to weaken the general effect of Clause 6. On the other hand, if the Amendment is intended to go beyond such cases as this, and to cover the case in which a tenant is debarred from compensation although he makes an improvement, it is an Amendment which we should not accept; and I move, therefore, to disagree with it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, as amended."—(Mr. Dodson.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that as it was clear the Government had made up
    1768
    their minds on this point he did not suppose it was worth while arguing it; but the Amendment was designed to carry out the object of the Bill. The intention of the Government was that, if there was a contract entered into with regard to the making of an improvement for anything given by the landlord, such contract should stand. The Amendment would do away with the obscurity which hung over Sub-section A of Clause 6. He did not see how it could do any harm, and he was surprised that Her Majesty's Government should waste the time of the House and bring themselves into conflict with the other House upon so trivial a matter. At the same time, he did not think it worth while pressing the matter further; and he supposed they must assent without further objection.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARREE HERSCHELL)said, it must not be taken as admitted that these words would do no mischief. Their contention was that if there was an arrangement between the parties concerned by which, for a consideration, in the shape of low rent or otherwise, improvements were to be made, that was already provided for in the Bill, although not in the same terms. On the other hand, if they inserted a Proviso, as in the present case, they would give rise to difficulties, and raise an argument that something more was meant.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he entirely agreed with the Amendment, and was utterly unable to follow the reasoning of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. The clear meaning of the Amendment was that all contracts should be binding both upon the landlord and upon the tenant. Her Majesty's Government now proposed that practically freedom of contract should be abolished, and that tenants should be at liberty to break agreements into which they had deliberately entered. As the Representative of a great commercial constituency, he (Mr. Whitley) deplored the fact that such a dangerous policy had been embarked upon; and he hoped the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would divide the House upon it.
    MR. WARTON,supporting the Amendment, said, he hoped that when the Solicitor General succeeded to the Bench he would remember the construction he had put on this clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    The Commons do not insist on their disagreement to the Lords' Amendment, in page 3, line 5, on which The Lords do insist.
    Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by The Lords to the Bill:"—Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. SHAW LEFEYRE, The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND, Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, and Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR:—Three to be the quorum:—To withdraw immediately.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL,— [BILL 307.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL,— [BILL 307.]

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS REASON AND AMENDMENT.
    Lords' Reason and Amendment considered forthwith.
    Lords' Amendment,
    "Provided that no compensation shall be claimed under this section for any improvement where the agreement fixing the rent was made on the express or implied condition that such improvement should be executed by the tenant,"
    proposed in lieu of the Proviso in page 2, line 3, read a second time, and disagreed to.
    The Commons do not insist on the second Amendment made by the Commons to The Lords' Amendment, page 2, line 39, to which The Lords have disagreed.
    The Commons do not insist on the disagreement to The Lords' Amendment, page 3, line 14, on which The Lords do insist.
    Amendment made by The Lords to Clause 29, as re-inserted by the Commons.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER),in moving that the House do agree to the Amendment, said, it was through a mistake the sub-section was not struck out by his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree to the Amendment made by The Lords to Clause 29, as re-inserted by this House."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he hoped the Solicitor General for Scotland was all right in what he was doing. [Laughter.] The occupants of the Treasury Bench might laugh; but they did not know what was in his head.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)said, he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that the course he was taking had the entire concurrence of the Lord Advocate.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee appointed,"to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill: "—Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. SHAW LEFEYRE, The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND, Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, and Lord RICHARD GEOSVENOR:—Three to be the quorum:—To withdraw immediately.

  BANKRUPTCY BILL.— [BILL 243.]
  (Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. John Holms.)
  BANKRUPTCY BILL.— [BILL 243.]

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords' Amendments to the Bill be considered forthwith."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, this question of considering the Lords' Amendments to important measures had in times past given rise to a considerable amount of discussion. Thirty years ago a Standing Order was made that such Amendments should be considered on a subsequent day to that upon which they were introduced. That was a salutary rule; and as he was given to understand that there were upwards of 60 Amendments to this Bill, a copy of which he had been unable to obtain, he submitted that it was unreasonable to attempt to consider them forthwith.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the Standing Order referred to did not prevent Amendments being considered when the House so ordered, as he asked should be done in this case. Although the Amendments were numerous, the vast majority of the alterations were by the draftsmen, and none of them raised any question of principle. He hoped, therefore, the House would consent to consider them at once.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, his object in desiring to defer the consideration

    1771
    of the Amendments was, that the vested interests of a considerable number of officers of the Court of Bankruptcy, which were safeguarded by the Act of 1869, were seriously imperilled by this Act. If the Government could assent to a small Amendment to protect the interests of the officers of the Court of Bankruptcy, he would be willing to withdraw his opposition.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the point was not touched by the Lords' Amendments.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he must protest against the system of no proper or due Notice being given of the Amendments introduced in Bills by the House of Lords. The present practice was most scandalous, and rendered it most difficult for hon. Members to do their duty. He trusted some prominent Member of the House would move a Standing Order which would provide that a distinct interval should elapse between the Lords' Amendments being brought up and their being considered.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, he hoped the Motion of the President of the Board of Trade would be adopted. At the same time, he trusted the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman in pressing the Amendment on the attention of the House without stating his reasons for so doing would not be established as a precedent.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Page 1, after line 23, insert—
    "If in England or elsewhere he makes any conveyance or transfer of his property, or any part thereof, or creates any charge thereon, which would, under this or any other Act, be void as a fraudulent preference if he were adjudged bankrupt,"
    —the first Amendment, read a second time.
    Amendment proposed, in line 3 of the said Amendment, to leave out the words "or any other."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    Question, "That the words 'or any other' stand part of the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Several Amendments agreed to.
    Amendment in Clause 17, page 7, line 6, after "writing," insert "and shall be read over to," the next Amendment, read a second time.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORproposed to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "or by one of the official shorthand writers attached to the court" in order to secure accuracy in taking the depositions.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Amendment appeared to go beyond the scope of the Lords' Amendment, to which alone the attention of the House must be directed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORpointed out that he merely wished to insert some words in the same place as the Lords had done to add to the protection of the debtor.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was not competent for him to put the hon. Member's Amendment from the Chair.
    Lords' Amendment agreed to.
    Several Amendments agreed to.
    Clause 116, page 52, after line 40, insert—
    "Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the right of any registrar or officer appointed before the passing of this Act to act as solicitor by himself, his clerk, or partner to the extent permitted by section sixty-nine of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869,"
    —the next Amendment, read a second time.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that the Bill provided that no Registrar should practise as a solicitor, and the alteration made by the Lords was opposed to the policy of the Bill. He, therefore, would move that the House disagree with the Lords' Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Arthur O' Connor.)
    MR. CHAMBERLAINexplained that the object of the Amendment was to prevent great hardships being inflicted upon existing Registrars, who had a right to practise in certain Courts.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lords' Amendment agreed to.
    Several Amendments agreed to.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORcomplained of the difficulty of knowing how and when to move to amend the alterations introduced by their Lordships. He wished to move the insertion of certain words with the object of saving the interests of some eight or ten officials of

    1773
    the Bankruptcy Court, who would be seriously affected by the Bill.
    MR. SPEAKER,having received the Amendment from the hon. Member, said it appeared to go beyond the scope of the Lords' Amendment, and raised the question of compensation. It certainly could not be put from the Chair.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that the Bill had been materially altered in the other House, and they were obliged to deal with it in a very unsatisfactory way. The Bill was becoming law in a form which was almost unknown to the Members of that House. He did not doubt that the alterations made by the House of Lords were improvements; but Members of that House—as the Amendments had not been printed—had had no opportunity of considering their effect. Of course, if the Government were satisfied with the alterations which had been made, the House would be satisfied. But the whole responsibility of those Amendments rested with the Government alone. His hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland), and other Members who had devoted great care and labour on the Bill, were exercising great forbearance in not criticizing the Amendments in detail; and he hoped that the Government would acknowledge that forbearance, and prevent the recurrence of such hasty legislation.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not think that the hon. Gentleman could have been in his place when he explained that, generally speaking, the whole of these Amendments were mere drafting Amendments, or to carry out pledges given to that House in the course of the passage of the Bill through the Grand Committee or through the Report stage. It was not, therefore, correct to say that the House of Lords had materially altered the Bill, and that they were called upon to accept it on faith. If there had been any serious Amendments of principle, he quite agreed that it would be impossible to ask for the forbearance of the House in taking them without further Notice. There was nothing unusual in the proceedings on that Bill, and nothing had happened which did not generally happen at the end of a Session. He admitted that the practice pursued to-day was one which it would be undesirable to extend; but the proposal was made for the convenience of Members,
    1774
    and in order to avoid a prolongation of the Session.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he could not agree with the President of the Board of Trade that the Amendments were immaterial. The change of a single word sometimes made all the difference in an Act of Parliament, and the House did not know what the effect of the Amendments would be. It was next to impossible to grasp the general bearing of the Amendments, without seeing them printed on the Paper, and having more time to consider them. The responsibility of those Amendments lay wholly with the Government.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought there ought to be time for the House to consider the question properly. The Amendments ought to have been placed in Members' hands properly paged and lined.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought they were fairly entitled to say that the Amendments of the Lords were of such a nature as to require very serious consideration. Under the circumstances in which they were presented, it was absolutely impossible to draft any Amendment. He thought it was just as well that the country should understand the parody on legislation which they had lately witnessed.
    Subsequent Amendments agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Courtney.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. CALLANsaid, he felt it his duty on this Bill to place on the Paper, so that the Attorney General for Ireland should have full Notice of it, a Motion dealing with jury-packing in Ireland. The Motion was—
    "That the exclusion of Catholics from the juries in the Commission Court in Dublin in August and September, 1882, gave just cause of grave dissatisfaction to the Catholics of Ireland."
    The House would also remember that he gave the Attorney General for Ireland special Notice as to Walsh's case. Any person conversant with the state of Ireland

    1775
    for the past few years—indeed, he might say the state of Ireland for the past 40 years, for it was 40 years since O'Connell was tried—must be aware that no subject has enlisted such warm feeling, or excited more dissatisfaction amongst the Catholics of Ireland, than the persistent, unblushing, and in many cases audacious exclusion of their co-religionists from the jury panels; and if ever there was a time when their exclusion gave rise to more dissatisfaction, or during which the Officers of the Crown ought to have respected the rights and privileges of Catholics, it was during the last 12 months. It was 13 months ago since the Prevention of Crime Act, after a discussion in the House calculated to engender the most acrimonious feelings, was entrusted to the Executive in Ireland. That Act gave the Crown power to call together jurors in a manner unprecedented in the chequered history of Ireland; and the first occasion on which jurors under that Act were called together was at a Commission held in Dublin unfortunately before Mr. Justice Lawson. On the jury panel there were 193 jurors, of whom 112 were Protestants or non-Catholics, and 81 Catholics. At the first trial, at which he should say, in justice to him, the Attorney General for Ireland was not present, 20 jurors were set aside, of whom 18 were Catholics, and an exclusively Protestant jury was sworn. That was the case known as "The Kerry Outrage," not a capital case, nor was it one which excited any interest in the City of Dublin. Now, who were the Catholics set aside? They were men amongst the most respectable of the City, leading merchants and others; men like Mr. Vaughan, a retired merchant; Mr. Ennis, a young sporting gentleman; Mr. Lenehan, one of the principal leather merchants in Dublin; and Mr. Dennehy, a most extensive merchant. The Freeman's Journal next day, in a most moderate article, called attention to the matter; and what did the Attorney General for Ireland say of that article? He said it was intolerable that it should be permitted that any journalist or any man belonging to any profession or class in the community should exercise a right of supervision over his Lordship's Court, which right belonged to his Lordship alone. Well, he supposed the Attorney General
    1776
    for Ireland meant, in referring to any other profession or class, to refer to that House. Well, they would see whether he was right in that assumption. O'Connor's case was tried on Thursday, and on Friday a young man named Hynes was tried, and in his case 23 Catholic jurors were ordered to stand aside, and an exclusively Protestant jury was sworn. In reference to that case, another article appeared in The Freeman's Journal, in which it was stated that the belief was gaining ground that Catholic jurors were being set aside simply and solely because they were Catholics; and in that belief he might now say The Freeman's Journal was supported by every Catholic in Ireland, from Episcopal authority down to the poorest peasant. Three days after that article was written, the Attorney General for Ireland, commenting on it, asked—"What is the obvious and necessary consequence of the publication of such an article? "Well, he would say—" By the fruits you will know them." And what, he would ask the House, was the immediate and obvious result of that article? The first trial that took place after it was published was that of Laurence Kelly, and on the jury in that case there were six Catholics and six Protestants. That was the immediate and obvious consequence of the article. But a most extraordinary circumstance connected with the case was that five of the Catholics sworn were actually ordered to stand aside in the O'Connor and Hynes' cases, or in Hynes' case alone. Did these men do their duty faithfully? Why, almost without leaving the box they found the man guilty. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND: Two hours.] He (Mr. Callan) expected that insinuation, and that was the reason he said almost without leaving the box. He would regard the two hours as showing the impartiality of the jury. The statement of The Freeman's Journal was borne out by those who best knew it, for the Catholic jurors themselves signed a protest declaring that they were set aside because they were Catholics. And who was one of the signatories to that protest? Not a Home Ruler, not a Land Leaguer, but Mr. Laurence Egan, a gentleman who resigned his seat in the Dublin Corporation because he could not coincide with the views of his constituents in their desire that the freedom of the

    1777
    City should be conferred on the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). How happy it would be if hon. Members in that House would follow a like honourable course when they found their views did not coincide with the views of their constituents. For the article in The freeman's Journal the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Cray) was imprisoned for six months and fined £500; and he might say that the imprisonment of the hon. Member and the conduct of his newspaper in the matter placed The Freeman's Journal, pre-eminently before the public of Ireland as a strong, determined, and fearless advocate of Catholic and Irish rights, and had placed the hon. Member himself in the foremost place in Irish polities as one of the most trusted Representatives of the Irish cause. When they had fined and imprisoned the hon. Member for Carlow County, the Crown, of course, found they were safe again; and in the very next case—the first trial of Patrick Walsh—the Crown Officers adopted the extraordinary course of suppressing the names of the jurors, so that they could not see who was told to stand aside. They knew, however, the men who were on the jury, and they were 12 true blues, and not a single Catholic. On the second trial of Patrick Walsh a little incident occurred which, he thought, would prove to the House the truth of his contention that jurors were set aside because they were Catholics, and for that reason alone. Mr. Thomas Phillips, partner of Mr. Charles Healy, was called. Mr. George Bolton, the chaste and virtuous friend of the Attorney General for Ireland, was in charge of the case, and he challenged Mr. Phillips. Mr. Samuel Anderson would have made no such mistake, for he knew the religion and politics of every juror in Dublin; but Mr. Bolton, trying his 'prentice hand at the work, challenged Mr. Phillips because he happened to be a partner of a Catholic. Immediately that he did so, the gentleman who did the registration work for the Constitutional Club and the marking of the jury lists for the Crown rushed across to Mr. Bolton, and it was apparent to everyone in Court that a mistake had been made, and that a true blue had been sot aside. In this very trial, although the Crown allowed Mr. E. Johnson, restaurant keeper and retailer, to be on the
    1778
    jury, he being a Protestant, yet five Catholics who held retail licences were objected to. He (Mr. Callan) was very glad to see the Attorney General for Ireland following him so closely, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman was present in Court while the whole of this packing of juries was going on at the hands of Mr. George Bolton, with whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in constant communication. At the first trial, as he had said, 11 Catholics were struck off, five of them being holders of retail licences. The next trial he would refer to was that of the man Walsh for the murder of Constable Kavanagh, which was begun on the 27th September. The present Attorney General for Ireland, then Solicitor General for Ireland, was present at this trial. Mr. Thomas Phillips was again called; but the chaste and virtuous George Bolton, having found by this time that Mr. Phillips was a Protestant, allowed him to be sworn in. Mr. Edward Johnson, although he hold a retail licence, yet had done good service at the previous trial, and he also was not objected to. Mr. W. J. Halliday, a grocer, holding a retail licence and a Protestant, was ordered to be sworn, although Mr. James Carroll, a gentleman holding precisely the same position, together with eight other Catholics, was ordered to stand by. Another gentleman who was struck off was Mr. Abraham Shackleton, a magistrate and a Quaker. In these two trials 26 Catholics were struck off in the presence of the Attorney General for Ireland. Prom beginning to end not one Catholic was allowed to appear. He would lot these facts speak for themselves. He was convinced that not even the ferocious Coercion Act—not even the vindictive Prevention of Crime Act—had envenomed the population of Ireland so much against the present Government as their course of conduct with regard to juries. He was sorry the Prime Minister was not in his place, for he believed him to be a man of justice, and he would have asked him to intervene. The Prime Minister was the only surviving Member of the Cabinet by whose conduct O'Connell was done to death, and the only surviving Member of the Cabinet whose Attorney General convicted O'Connell by a manipulation of the jury panel, which in the House of Lords Lord Denman said had produced a jury which was a delusion, a

    1779
    mockery, and a snare. Men had been ordered during the recent trial to stand aside whose fathers were more respectable than the Attorney General for Ireland's father, and whose own position was fully equal to that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This conduct on the part of the Government had encouraged the contemptible pettifoggers who were the Crown prosecutors throughout the country. He was present last March at Dundalk, the first town on the Circuit to which the Attorney General for Ireland belonged, the Crown prosecutor being Mr. Parkinson, a staunch Conservative. There was only one small case of larceny, and the prosecutor declined to challenge; but, to the surprise of everybody, the Crown Prosecutor said he was bound to act up to his instructions, and 18 jurors were accordingly called. The first was a Catholic, a wealthy and independent man, and he was ordered to stand aside. Two jurors were sworn, and the fourth person who came up was also sworn, although he held a retail licence, and was so described in the panel. He, however, was a Protestant. That showed that Catholic jurors were ordered to stand aside whilst Protestants were sworn in. He would ask whether in the Phœnix Park trials the Government did not find that Catholics returned verdicts according to the evidence? The presiding Judge, Mr. Justice O'Brien, on that occasion knew the tendency of the Crown officials to pack juries; and when he was Crown Prosecutor at Green Street had repeatedly told him (Mr. Callan) that the tendency was to exclude Catholics and to pack juries. For himself, he placed the most entire confidence in the impartiality, the high character, and the fairness of the learned Judge, who had said that by a jury of half Catholics and half Protestants they were more likely to get a verdict according to the evidence than by any other means. He (Mr. Callan) held the Attorney General for Ireland responsible for this packing of juries, and for the exclusion of Catholics when it took place in his presence, and when the party by whom the packing was done was one of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's subordinates. What could Catholics feel with respect to the Executive Government when they saw their brother Catholics, worthy and independent men,
    1780
    treated in this way. Unfortunately, many of them hitherto had been pure unadulterated Whigs; but he trusted after this they would ever be found on the side of determined opposition to the Government. He knew that the feeling of the North of Ireland Unitarians against the Catholics was very strong, and the Attorney General for Ireland was one of the most cherished Representatives of that feeling. What he wished to impress upon the House was that the conduct of the Attorney General for Ireland in permitting such audacious and scandalous proceedings as this capricious and insulting exclusion of Catholic jurors was conduct that merited the condemnation of every Irish Catholic, and conduct which he hoped would, at the next Election, bring down dire vengeance upon the Representatives of the Government in Ireland.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, this jury-packing was so open and unblushing that he wondered why even such a grave Gentleman as the Attorney General for Ireland did not burst out laughing when he attempted to defend it. In the case of his (Mr. O'Brien's) own trial—though, as far as the learned Judge who tried the case, and the personal demeanour of the Law Officers of the Crown went, he had nothing to complain of—and although he himself declined to challenge any juror—yet the jury was shamelessly packed under his own eyes. Catholic after Catholic—some of them men of the very highest position in Dublin—were made to stand aside, and Protestants took their places. Just two Catholics were allowed on that jury, and they were admitted simply because on the previous day they happened to be on a jury, and had found a verdict without leaving the box that had sent a man to penal servitude for life. If there was anything more distrusted in Ireland than the system of jury-packing, it was the hypocrisy with which officials were found to stand up in that House to explain it away. He would now call attention to another matter—namely, the conduct of the Resident Magistrate (Captain Plunkett) in the case of a so-called "Boycotted" blacksmith, named Hallissey, at Aughabullogue. This magistrate wrote a letter promising to relieve the parish of a police tax of £200 a-year or so if the people would subscribe £50, and present Hallissey with it, to enable

    1781
    him to leave the country. Never such a letter had ever been written by a bandit, not to say official. This was as plain a case of levying blackmail on the district as any since the days of Rob Roy Macgregor—" Collect the money, and I will have the police removed; fail to do so, and they shall remain; "and this on behalf of a man that had been fleecing the parish, and keeping it in hot water by getting up a bogus story of being fired at. When he (Mr. O'Brien) brought this matter before the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman replied that the offer came quite spontaneously from the parishioners, and that it was out of his mere bounty that Captain Plunkett had agreed to the terms. On that reply appearing next morning, the parishioners held a meeting under the presidency of their priest, in which they stated that "nothing could be further from the truth than the version given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland." But, as a matter of fact, the parishioners were placed "between the devil and the deep sea," and had either to pay these policemen or pay Hallissey off. But to represent them as consenting parties to this transaction was but repeating the old story of representing the tenant farmers as consenting parties to their own rack-renting, when, to use the simile of the Prime Minister, landlordism stood over them like a ruffian with a knuckle duster. He wanted to know if there was not a law which Captain Plunkett was distinctly and flagrantly violating when he wrote this letter to Father Ahearn? There was the Intimidation Clause of the Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to compel a man to do that which he had a legal right to abstain from doing. Captain Plunkett could not have more clearly violated that law unless he were to go about enforcing his will with a revolver. He wanted the same law enforced in the South against a magistrate which had been enforced in Loughrea against young men who were collecting funds to defend untried prisoners. Suppose the people subscribed the £50 that was required to emigrate Hallissey, was there anything to prevent him raising the figure to £100? He understood his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was going to refer to the Crossmaglen cases; and he would help him by mentioning some
    1782
    facts which came to his own knowledge as to the practices by which the police endeavoured to obtain convictions. The man Bannican, of Tullyard, made an affidavit that the police arrested him and carried him to the police barrack without a warrant. In the barrack the police told him some persons had sworn against him, and reminded him that he had a wife and large family. Bannican replied that he had no evidence to give; and at 3 o'clock in the morning he was released, without having been brought before a magistrate. The Chief Secretary for Ireland at first, in reply to a Question, totally denied these circumstances. That was rather puzzling; and he (Mr. O'Brien) investigated the matter, and ascertained that Bannican, his wife, and mother-in-law were ready to swear that the police did invade his house at midnight, did make threats and statements to him, and did carry him four miles to the barrack without a warrant. What was the Chief Secretary's reply? He said that in the interests of public justice he could not answer any more Questions on this subject. Was it safe for the Chief Secretary now to explain the meaning of his mysterious answer? He was afraid this was only a small part of the system by which these unfortunate Crossmaglen men were handed over to the tender mercies of Mr. Duffy, the informer, and a jury of Belfast Orangemen. He would only add that so long as Her Majesty's Government endeavoured to extort evidence by means of terrorism and the holding out of unworthy inducements, they would succeed in nothing but the establishment of a permanent hatred and contempt of the law.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he hoped some answer would be given by the Government to the very grave charges that had been brought against their Irish policy.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had stated some facts of Hallissey's case accurately; but there were other facts which put the matter in a different light.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. TREVELYAN,resuming, said, the case of Hallissey's unpopularity was that in the position of a blacksmith he worked for persons who had earned

    1783
    the displeasure of the political combinations in the neighbourhood. If he had done otherwise he would have been guilty of what no good citizen should be guilty of—namely, refusing to give the accommodation which his trade was intended to afford to persons who called upon him in the ordinary way of business. That was his crime. Let thorn see what was his punishment. Prom a report made in 1882 he learned that Hallissey was "Boycotted" by his former customers. He had been earning 35 s. a-week; but he was reduced to penury with all its consequences. His health suffered from anxiety and absolute poverty; and two of his neighbours who showed him some little kindness had their ploughshares broken during one night, as a warning that "Captain Moonlight" had his eye upon them, and that they had, therefore, better not follow the dictates of their own consciences any longer. The poor man then applied to the Government, and stated that even his doctor was afraid to visit him. He was then visited by the dispensary doctor, and received some little help from the Government to keep him going. When his cruel neighbours failed to get rid of him by the milder methods of "Boycotting" they resorted to rougher means; and in October, as he was standing at his door, he was struck by a stone, which rendered him senseless for some time. "Boycotting" was subsequently continued, and the case was one in which the Government was clearly bound to apply the power which was put into their hands by Parliament. He could not conceive a stronger case. It became absolutely the duty of the Government to show that in Ireland, as in England and Scotland, a citizen who did his duty by the community had a right to live. Under such circumstances the police tax was imposed, and it was found very irksome indeed by the community. There was a general desire to get rid of the burden, and negotiations began between the police officers and the parish priest. Captain Plunkett telegraphed to him that the parish priest originated a collection of money for the purpose of emigrating Hallissey. So far from Captain Plunkett having originated the proposal, it was evident that at the time he sent the telegram he was under the impression that the Rev. Mr. Ahearn had got up the subscription.
    1784
    That, however, was not the case. The proposal originated in a conversation between Mr. Langan and the parish priest, and it came, in the first place, from the former. The parish priest informed Mr. Langan that he saw no prospect of the "Boycotting" ceasing, and the Resident Magistrate stated the police could not be moved as long as Hallissey's life was in danger. Under these circumstances, the parish priest, who had the confidence of the parishioners at large on the one hand, and the magistrates representing the Government on the other, came together and had a talk. The parish priest said he allowed Hallissey was in danger, and that the danger would not cease so long as he was in the country. The magistrate assured him that the Government had not imposed the police tax for vindictive purposes, but for the very practical purpose of protecting a man's life, and that if that man left the country the tax would be removed. The hon. Member for Mallow might call it blackmail, and he might compare Captain Plunkett to a ruffian standing over them with a knuckle-duster; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) thought the negotiations were honourable both to Mr. Ahearn and to Captain Plunkett. The hon. Member for Mallow said he might be disposed to look favourably upon the Government's emigration scheme, if they would use it for the purpose of ridding the country of citizens like Hallissey. What a really terrible sentiment that was. What was Hallissey's fault? Why, that he had done his duty as an honest tradesman and as a fearless citizen. The consequence was that his heart had been broken and his business had been ruined. The hon. Gentleman had nothing to say against the man except that he was unpopular among the people. He, however, thought that Hallissey was the sort of man whom they wanted to rid the country of; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) was of opinion that citizens like Hallissey were exactly the sort of citizens who were wanted in Ireland as well as in any other country. It was only because the district had got into an extremely unhealthy state that emigration had been resorted to, and that a citizen who ought to have remained at work in his village had been compelled to leave the country. The poor man, he took it, would not stick out in order to make a good

    1785
    bargain for himself. His life was as undeservedly miserable as it could be; but he hoped the affair would end amicably, and in a manner that would be popular with the respectable part of the community. He regretted that transactions which appeared to prove that things were mending in Ireland should have been characterized by epithets so very severe as those used by the hon. Member for Mallow. The case of Hallissey was interesting for its typical character, and he was not sorry that it had been brought before the House; but he earnestly hoped that hon. Members who might follow would not adopt the same tone of speech. He would leave the Crossmaglen case to be dealt with by the Attorney General for Ireland. The hon. Member had asked for an explanation in that case, and if he could have given any explanation he would have given it at first. He had said, four months ago, that it was impossible to answer that question in the interests of justice, and it was now impossible to answer the question in the interests of justice.
    MR. MOLLOY,recurring to the case of Mrs. Graham, who confessed while in prison for theft that she had written threatening letters in the neighbourhood of Castle Jordan, and stated that she had been instigated to do so by a blacksmith named Denny Glynn, observed, that the answer of the Chief Secretary to a question put by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) absolutely and entirely confirmed the statement which he made with regard to the matter on Saturday last. The threatening letters were followed by the crimes which they said would be committed, and in consequence of which the district was proclaimed; and yet, by a farce of justice, no action was taken against the woman, nor against the instigator of the threatening letters. In her confession, she said—" Denny Glynn, the blacksmith, was the man who put all this misfortune upon me; "and she then alluded to a threatening letter sent to a man named M'Namara, a farmer, whose house was burned to the ground, himself and his family having had a narrow escape from being burned to death. In that case the threat contained in the letter was followed by the crime itself. And so it was in two other cases. What he complained of was, that the district was proclaimed
    1786
    while the person guilty of the crimes was allowed to escape. For six long months he had been endeavouring to obtain an investigation; and to-day he was told that his statement that the woman was not prosecuted, and that the Government refused to prosecute, was incorrect, because, according to the right hon. Gentleman, she pleaded guilty, and was allowed to depart in peace. He maintained that his statement was correct, and that his case remained unrefuted, uncontradicted, and unanswered. He would say no more than that he again challenged investigation in the interests of peace, order, and justice. One of the sufferers by the outrages, Mr. Carew, on whose gates the threatening letters were posted, had been selected to bear nearly the whole penalty. Mr. Carew was a man of position who took no part in politics, and yet the extra police tax had been thrown upon the whole of his property, while the property all round was left untouched.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he had no hope of influencing the House, or of getting anything but a series of denials from the right hon. Gentlemen who were paid in the House to give the answers desired by the police; but he desired to put forward certain cases, so that public attention might be called to them. He simply regarded the Attorney General for Ireland as the humble servant of the police. Whatever the police did in Ireland they were backed up by the Government on all hands. With regard to the statement made by the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy), it remained entirely unrefuted; but what notice had been taken of it by the House? The House had done nothing more than what honest Liberals should do, and merely cheered the Government. It would not affect the English newspapers, which did not quote facts, and only abused the Irish Members for what they called their scandalous conduct; and so the game went on. He would draw the attention of the House to the case of the Crossmaglen prisoners, and to the conduct of a person of the" blacksmith species," named Duffy, who had sought, by means of fraudulent books, to connect hundreds of young men with the Patriotic Brotherhood. One man, Patrick Finnigan, whom he had said had been sworn to shoot Brooke, of Castleblayney, had been afterwards

    1787
    found to have been in Glasgow at the time; and Donnelly, of Carnally, who was stated to have burned down a mill, had gone to America two months before the mill was burnt down. After these two facts, what now did they think of Mr. Duffy, the firm and gentle Mr. Duffy, the versatile, the candid Mr. Duffy, the Governmental Mr. Duffy?—for no adjectives would be complete without capping the climax. At Belfast the Government produced two books—the Mullabawn book and the Crossmaglen book. Doubt, much similar to that cast on the Shapira manuscripts, was thrown on the Mullabawn book and the Crossmaglen book. To a person of true investigating spirit, the manner of the discovery of those books put forward by the Government Sub-Inspector was extremely interesting. This Sub-Inspector swore—and this was the only corroboration the Government had—that the books were found in a wall of a house belonging to one Nugent, and that Patrick Waters stated that the Crossmaglen book was a genuine document, and had written him a letter to that effect. The inquisitive public asked what became of that letter. Wonderful, was it not, the obstacles thrown in the way of law and order in Ireland? The public ought to be more gentle and more lenient in its inquiries in the matter of Irish criminal trials. They, however, were there representing the public; and they, in the interests of the public, demanded to be told what became of Patrick Waters' letter? What was the story of the Sub-Inspector? The Sub-Inspector could not find the letter. Perhaps it might be that the Attorney General for Ireland had got the letter now in his despatch-box, and would produce it triumphantly to refute the libels upon justice coming from men who dared challenge the word of a real live Sub-Inspector. Let him do it if he was able. Would the Attorney General for Ireland go the length of saying that Mr. Duffy was inspired; because, otherwise, how could they account for the fact that in the Mullabawn book he gave full-length speeches of all these dark conspirators? Was he an adept at stenography, this literary blacksmith? Even from Mr. Hallissey, the Mallow blacksmith, for whose comfort the Government did so much, it would be too much to expect that he would be able to take down long
    1788
    speeches verbatim. That being so, the Government was in great difficulty to make things square, and so they never allowed the prisoners or their counsel to get a glimpse at these books. They went about, however, amongst the prisoners showing them these books, and telling them that if they only pleaded guilty they would be allowed out on their own recognizances. The minions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland—who professed to be so eager in the interests of justice, and who was so anxious that no innocent man should be found guilty—would not allow the unfortunate prisoners, or one representing them, a minute to scrutinize these volumes until the day of the trial, when they were flung for a few minutes to the prisoners' counsel to be snatched back again and handed over to The Northern Whig, the chief literary supporter of the Attorney General. But when The Northern Whig circulated in Crossmaglen another batch of the unfortunate prisoners had been convicted; and so the hundreds of men who could have come forward and shattered to atoms the statements in that infamous production were too late, and when some of them did arrive in Belfast all was over. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was very anxious for the interests of justice—very anxious. They wished his interest in these men—innocent men—would have allowed him to let them know what the charges were that he had brought against them. It was no part of his business, he would say, to get up the evidence for defence. But for what else did he draw his salary, except to give innocent men a chance? He was not paid by the taxpayers of this country only to find them guilty, though between him and his Colleagues he got £9,000 a-year in fees for doing it. He was not paid to find unfortunate peasants guilty on such evidence as this—in these two books—infernal machines he (Mr. Healy) would prefer to call them—fabricated by the police system in Ireland. Men were locked up in Ireland without any means of knowing what charges were made against them until the informer came on the table and swore. Had they the right hon. and learned Gentleman in their clutches, and had they all the powers of the great police machinery in Ireland, through which they might hear throbbing all the force

    1789
    of British might behind it; they had him for six months, with all the torture of solitary confinement, deprived of his friends, deprived of everything, with informers fabricating charges against him, and could they try him then by a Catholic jury—he would not say Catholics, it would be an insult—could they try him by a jury of 12 Invincibles—12 sworn members of a secret society, what chance would there be for his neck? Why, he could by this patent plan find any man in that House guilty of any conceivable offence, from the Prime Minister downwards—very much downwards. Give him an informer, give him a dozen policemen, give him an Invincible jury, give him solitary confinement, give him the reverse of Judge Lawson, and where was the one he would not convict? Why, he would have the 500 or 600 Members of that House in penal servitude in the twinkling of an eye. No evidence whatever was forthcoming against these 12 men except the evidence of the informer Duffy, and the Crossmaglen book, and the Mullabawn book. It was for nothing Michael Bannican was dragged out of his bed at night by Constable Gartland, threatened that he had better tell all or it would be worse for him; but, unfortunate man, like the needy knife-grinder's story, he had none to tell, and he preferred solitary confinement from Constable Gartland to inventing stories against his fellow-men. But they got Mr. O'Hanlon, who swore that he belonged to the so called conspiracy, and saw one of the prisoners write in the Mullabawn book. What happened to Mr. O'Hanlon? He was so smitten at the idea of sending 12 innocent men to the gallows or penal servitude, and freed from the terrorism of the police, that he said he would prefer to go to penal servitude himself than swear falsely against the men. The County Armagh, where this conspiracy was alleged to have existed, was a county where there were as many Protestants as Catholics; but although a county where both were evenly balanced, not a man, Catholic or Protestant, believed a word of Mr. Duffy's story about the Orossmaglen book and the Mullabawn book. There everybody pretty well knew what Duffy's character was; but the Protestant county of Armagh was not good enough for the Irish police
    1790
    machinery, and so they took the unfortunate men to Belfast. Blackstone it was, he believed, who spoke of the desirability of men being tried in. the locality in which they lived, and where everything was known about them; but in this 19th century they had got a long way ahead of Blackstone. They had got, in fact, to Porter, and he doubted not that succeeding generations would be greatly bettered by the experience of this enlightened age. But the men were removed from the Protestant county of Armagh to Belfast; and the other night the Attorney General for Ireland made great capital out of the fact that they were tried there by a common jury. Mavrone! There was very little necessity to try in Belfast "the good old rule, the simple plan," of Crown challenge. That was a region well known to the Attorney General for Ireland. [The ATTORNEY GENEBAL for IRELAND: Hear, hear!] He was glad to have the approving cheer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for well he knew the juries of the County Antrim. Twelve peasants from the hills of Armagh tried before a jury on which there was not one member of the old faith—a faith that would live in Ireland when Unitarianism would have sunk into the infinite azure of the past. There, before Judge Lawson, they were tried and found guilty, as a matter of course; and what was the verdict of Ireland on the trials? He would give that in the words of the editor of The Daily Express, the gentleman who was Dublin Correspondent of The Times, the editor of the Orange organ of Ireland; and what did he say—
    "We would not find fault with the jury if they were unable to come to a conclusion that the men were guilty."
    Bernard Smyth had been released because he was spitting blood. Why not also release Michael Waters, who was dying of consumption? The boy was not 19 when arrested. He was kept over 12 months in gaol without trial; and the unfortunate lad would not last much longer in Mountjoy Prison unless he was speedily released. Why was he detained, when Smyth, a much haler man, was liberated? If that was the way the British Government proposed to strike terror, they would only strike shame and hatred into the people. Who was afraid of the British Government? The

    1791
    people of Ireland only despised them. Strike terror! The whole population of Armagh, even the landlord and Protestant class before whom they dared not try the Crossmaglen prisoners, believed them innocent. Did the Government hope to strike terror into the guilty by imprisoning and hanging innocent men? It was only the British Government that were capable of such an attempt to maintain law and order. The people of Ireland loved justice; no people could be found more anxious for the carrying out of a just law than they were. Irish Attorney Generals since the days of Davis had only changed by becoming blacker. Where was the innocent man who, after being confined in a miserable cell, fed with miserable food, allowed to speak to nobody, kept 12 months awaiting trial, and then tortured by informers, might not be induced to plead guilty in the hope of being let out on his own recognizances? Yet these Crossmaglen men refused all proffers of the kind made to them, strong in the belief that innocence must triumph. It was by this system of police, of terrorism, and ruffianism, which was upheld by officials getting large salaries in Ireland, that justice was defeated. Irish Members were accused of using strong language. One would imagine, from what had been said, that they should only be engaged on those Benches with a thurifer incensing the Treasury Bench. Understand the present position in Ireland. Nine-tenths of the people hated and the other one-tenth despised the English, for they knew—the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman), and the hon. Member for the County of Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) knew—as well as they did what the whole game was. They knew that they were simply an engine for the extraction of rent and for the extraction of taxes. From the day the English first landed on their shores, 700 years ago, down to this 23rd of August, 1883, they did nothing for the people that they could possibly abstain from doing. They rack-rented, tortured, and oppressed the country in the interests of a miserable clique. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would get up and read out to them his Mullabawn book and his Crossmaglen book; but let him read them to his supporters. He would produce no conviction upon the minds of Irish
    1792
    Members, and they could not hope to produce conviction on his mind—his £9,000 a-year was against it. The Government had all the weight of interest, of money, of position in their favour. They had the seven deadly sins on their side—they had everything that the oppressor and the tyrant had; but let them not hope to influence the minds of his hon. Friends. Let them make their speeches, make their statements, produce their police documents, talk to the English public; but the Irish public would neither believe them nor respect them.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he deeply regretted the tone of the speech of the last speaker. In this closing day of the Session it was obviously the intention of the hon. Member who had delivered the speech, avowedly to the outside public, to do everything he could to prevent the re-union of the discordant element, and to hinder that return to law and peace-fulness which alone would result in the happiness of those whom the hon. Member professed to represent. So long as crime stalked through the land, so long as life was insecure, so long would it be impossible to hope for that which ought to be the wish of everyone who was influenced by a spark of real patriotism. The hon. Member had again, upon this occasion, endeavoured to bring discredit upon everything connected with the administration of law and justice; and he had laboured to extend sympathy not only to everyone who was accused of crime, but everyone who had been convicted of crime. He had never laid claim to the merits of his Predecessor, to nothing except a conscientious endeavour to do his duty in the disagreeable position in which he was placed, and he should endeavour to do so in future, undaunted by the threats of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had gone over ground that had already been traversed several times this Session. He had nothing to add, in answer to him, to what he had already stated. He had to say, as he had said before, that the directions which were given by his respected Predecessor always were that there should be no difference in matters of religion in reference to jury panelling. Those instructions had been his. [Cries of "Oh!"] They had been his, he repeated, and hon. Gentlemen opposite

    1793
    had expressly admitted that during the time he had been responsible for the conduct of affairs they had had no fault to find. ["Oh!"]
    MR. CALLAN: I never admitted anything of the kind. [Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member must allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to proceed with his statement.
    MR. CALLAN: I say I never admitted anything of the kind. [Cries of "Order!"] On the contrary, I deny it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he did not separate himself from anything that had been done by his hon, and learned Colleague. But the hon. Gentleman was inaccurate in stating that he was personally responsible for these juries, as he was not Chief Law Officer of the Crown.
    MR. CALLAN: But you were present. ["Order, order!"
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he would not, however, put forward that plea, as he was prepared to share all responsibility with his late Colleague. With regard to the case of Michael Walsh, the hon. Member for Louth, who praised the conduct of his Predecessor, had stated again and again that he (the Attorney General for Ireland) was in command of the case, and was responsible for it. His right hon. and learned Colleague was with him during the whole of the case, conducted it, and stated it, and the instructions he gave were approved by him most cordially, and they were that a distinction should never be made between a Protestant and a Catholic. In reference to one of those trials which had been animadverted upon, 20 persons were told to stand aside, 11 of them being Catholics and 9 Protestants. The prisoner had 20 challenges if he chose to use them; but he did, as a matter of fact, challenge only 12. Thus there were of persons directed to stand aside 21 Protestants, both for the prosecution and for the defence, as against 11 Catholics; and it was not to be wondered at when the prisoner did not exhaust his right of challenge that there should be a preponderance of Protestants, bearing in mind that the panel was very much more Protestant than Catholic. There was a rule which had been
    1794
    handed down by his Predecessors, that in each and every case persons who carried on the business of spirit retail dealers should be directed to stand aside. He did not accuse that class of persons of being corrupt or unintelligent; but it was necessary in their own interest, and also in the interest of justice, and it was more satisfactory to the public, that they should not try criminal cases. The particular charges in those instances were agrarian crimes and a conspiracy which had extended over a large part of the country; and it was necessary that the men who tried them should not only be intelligent and respectable, but should be men of firmness and fearlessness. It was on one of those juries that two gentlemen were serving when they incurred the hatred of those who conspired to take away their lives, and who almost succeeded in their purpose. It therefore required no ordinary independence and firmness of mind to fit men to be jurors; and when it was found that those who had charge of the defence had a right to set aside a large number more than they did set aside, he appealed to that fact as showing that there was no feeling on the part of the prisoner or his counsel that there was likely to be any unfairness. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had told them that he did not appeal to the House, and that he was prepared to believe nothing that was said on that side. [Mr. HEALY dissented.] He did not profess to quote the hon. Member's words; but he had understood him to say that he would not believe any statement made from that quarter, and did not expect any of his own statements to be believed by him. Now, he could not reciprocate that sentiment of the hon. Member. For himself, he should be heartily glad to believe any statement of hon. Members opposite if it bore on the face of it that it was made with care and circumspection, with a regard to facts, and also to the feelings of persons who were absent from the House. But statements that were made recklessly without authority, and with an absolute indifference as to the pain and injury they would inflict on absent persons, would not, he was sure, commend themselves to the judgment of the House. The hon. Member for Monaghan had dwelt at some length on the conduct of the trial of the Crossmaglen conspiracy; but his

    1795
    statements were incapable of verification, and were only calculated to encourage people out-of-doors to resist law and order. They were statements which, as many others made in that House, were idle tittle-tattle which had been furnished to the hon. Gentleman—for he had no opportunity of knowing anything of these matters personally—and which could not be vouched for, had never been proved, and were totally incapable of proof. Now, the information which the authorities had in regard to the Crossmaglen conspiracy was not wrung from a reluctant informer; it was not obtained by threats or by inducements; but it was obtained from two or three different quarters, and, at the same time, from persons none of whom knew that either of the others was communicating information at all. It had been stated that the man Hanlon was brought as a prisoner and compelled to give evidence from which he afterwards receded. The man went voluntarily to the magistrate at Armagh and communicated his evidence to him; he swore to it, and repeated on information from time to time, in page after page of the most minute detail, transactions which no man could possibly have invented. [An hon. MEMBER: What about Duffy?] Of Duffy the hon. Member was at liberty to say what he pleased. Duffy's evidence was undoubtedly that of an informer, which needed corroboration, and it received corroboration. The books which had been so much jeered at showed on the face of them that they were written by different hands, at different times, and in different ink; that they were not concocted; that they were kept for a purpose, although they contained some curious entries. Moreover, the handwriting of portions of those books was proved to be identical with a number of threatening letters which were produced, and were proved to have been received. That was the kind of statement made in the House of Commons to discredit the result of a trial, which in all its circumstances was as just and as fair a trial as ever took place. With regard to the statement that the police went round the town and told the people to go away, there was not a shadow of truth in it. These men were not tried in Monaghan or Armagh, but in the county of Antrim, and he thought the House would agree
    1796
    that it was right for the Crown to change the venue in such a case. He had known the body of the jurors in the county of Antrim ever since he first began to practise his profession, and he could assert that on the whole a fairer, a more impartial, and a more intelligent jury panel was not to be found in any portion of the Three Kingdoms. [Mr. CALLAN: Oh, oh!] He (the Attorney General for Ireland) knew that their standard of honesty, intelligence, or impartiality did not come up to the standard of the hon. Member for Louth. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had said that a jury in the county of Antrim consisting of persons who were not Catholics were not to be trusted to do justice to a Roman Catholic. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) was deeply conscious of the differences that existed in Ireland, and of numerous things in its society that ought to be amended; but he had no hesitation in saying that a grosser or a fouler calumny upon the great bulk of the population of the North of Ireland it was impossible to conceive. It was perfectly true that Bernard Smith had received a remission of part of his sentence; and yet even this was made a ground of charge against Her Majesty's Government—that the Prerogative of Mercy had been extended to a man whose life was proved to have been in danger in consequence of his suffering from heart disease and spitting of blood. Any hon. Member who made this a ground of charge in Parliament incurred a grave responsibility as regarded the remaining prisoners. Was he aware that by making an attack of that kind he was doing all he could to render it difficult, if not impossible, to extend that Prerogative of Mercy in the future to prisoners who were in ill-health? It appeared, however, that any argument was good enough provided that for one moment it tended to excite prejudice, passion, and animosity against Her Majesty's Government. In the case of Bernard Smith, the circumstances differed from those associated with the rest of the prisoners.
    MR. HEALY: Then, why did he not get the same sentence?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, there was an absence in the case of Smith of

    1797
    that direct corroboration 'which was brought home to others.
    MR. PARNELL: This is rather an important point. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there was such corroboration in the case of Coleman?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he could not undertake to say from recollection whether there was such corroboration in the case of Coleman, because he was not present at the trial, and only knew what took place from reading the reports and the informations. He would say that in nearly all the other cases there was positive and clear corroboration. It was true that Smith's name appeared in the book; but when he petitioned the Lord Lieutenant, he pointed out that there were live others of the same name in the same district, and that he might have been mistaken, and the upright and learned Judge who tried the case rocommended, when the memorial was submitted to him, that its prayer should be agreed to. But the name of the learned Judge had been upon this occasion, as upon every other, foully bespattered. ["No, no!"]
    MR. HEALY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman quote the "foul bespattering?"
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): As to the second batch of prisoners, it was possible that they might have received a lighter sentence if they had not been persuaded by mischievous advisers to take their chance of a trial. This was a case in which it was idle to expect the House to review the decision of a jury; but he maintained that no single circumstance, founded on fact, had been mentioned by the hon. Members who had impugned the trial, which cast the slightest doubt upon the propriety or justice of the proceedings. The hon. Member for Monaghan also referred to the case of Hallissey, calling him a man of no business, although his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had shown him to be a prosperous man, earning 35 s. a-week.
    MR. HEALY: Might I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he was receiving outdoor relief? ["Order!"]
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): Does the hon. Member say that of his own knowledge?
    MR. HEALY: Yes, I do.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): From his own knowledge?
    MR. HEALY: From the statements of the Board of Guardians.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he should believe that that was after the "Boycotting" until something was proved to the contrary. Mrs. Green was prosecuted and returned for trial, and she was prosecuted; but the Crown could not prevent her pleading guilty. The Judge gave her a lenient sentence, because it was quite plain she had been acting under the influence of her husband, a working mason. The reason why the man she named was not prosecuted was that the Crown did not believe he had anything to do with the offences, while he was a man who had been "Boycotted" on account of his interest in the trade dispute then existing. The statement of the woman was utterly uncorroborated, and if it had been acted upon it would have been complained that the Crown were using the evidence of informers. He cared not for personal attacks upon himself, nor for the menaces made against himself. He admitted his inferiority to the men who had gone be-fore him. He admitted that his right hon. and learned Predecessor, who had not long left the House, was a man in every way his superior, except in his determination to do his duty fearlessly, perfectly undismayed by anything that went on either inside or outside of that House, content to leave his conduct to be judged by those who, in the long run, would give credit to a man of honesty of purpose, and for steadfastness of determination in duty.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, this case of the peasants convicted at the Belfast Assizes of conspiracy to murder had excited a very great amount of attention, not only in the North of Ireland, but throughout the rest of the country, and he thought he was safe in saying that it was the universal conviction in Ireland, and that that conviction would still remain despite the eloquence and special pleading of the Attorney General for Ireland, that

    1799
    in the case in question a number of innocent persons were now enduring penal servitude; the belief was universal that these people were unjustly convicted and sentenced for offences which they had not committed. How far had they now got in this case? To a virtual admission by the Government that one of the persons was unjustly convicted, and that there was not sufficient evidence to maintain the sentence inflicted upon him, for they found that Bernard Smith was released unconditionally by the Lord Lieutenant from the sentence of penal servitude. He did not believe, and it was useless to tell them, that mere spitting of blood by a prisoner sentenced to penal servitude in Ireland on a grave offence of this kind would secure his release. Such a statement was preposterous. He confessed he had formed, previous to this discussion, a very strong opinion as to the innocence of those men, and he had hoped to hear from the Attorney General for Ireland some attempt, at all events, to inquire dispassionately into this case, as if he were a seeker after truth, and not a person endeavouring, by pleading quibbles and technicalities, to uphold the administration of what was called law and order in Ireland. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman evaded the force and point of the attack of his hon. Friend, and turned aside to miserable quibbles and special pleading which might have done credit to some Petty Sessions attorney, but which were not creditable in a case of this grave character, and which he did not expect to hear from the lips of the Attorney General for Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said these prisoners were tried before a common jury. Yes, a jury of common Orange rowdies taken from such localities as the Pound, and a class from which those ship carpenters came who annually assembled, armed with bludgeons and weapons, for the purpose of attempting to take the lives or of inflicting injury upon their Catholic fellow-countrymen. A special jury in Belfast would be infinitely less unfair in a trial of this kind than a common jury taken from that class. Their contention simply was that a jury of Northern Protestants taken from the class to which this common jury belonged could not possibly be a fair one under the circumstances. Would any hon. Member like to be tried in any
    1800
    case, however slight, by a jury of illiterate men consisting of his political enemies? He ventured to think no hon. Member would feel himself safe in such a condition. Yet these proceedings were of daily occurrence in Ireland, and had occurred in reference to the lives and liberties, not of people of importance in the country, but of the humblest classes of mountain peasant such as had been described by his hon. Friend, who were now suffering terrible sentences in Mount-joy Prison. Ordinarily, prisoners were allowed the right of 20 challenges; but the prisoners were put on trial on a charge which amounted to misdemeanour, and they were in that way limited collectively to six challenges, while the Crown had an unlimited right to order jurors to stand aside. The wonderful books which were produced on the trial, and which were supposed to contain internal evidence of genuineness, were persistently withheld from the legal gentlemen defending the prisoners, and they got only such a glance at them as rendered it impossible they could adequately defend the prisoners in respect of their contents. The right hon. and learned Gentleman accused his hon. Friend of endeavouring to bring law and order into discredit. That discredit was brought by themselves. It was brought by such trials as this, and the issue of such trials. He was informed that the case against Coleman, who was still in penal servitude, was precisely the same as that against Bernard Smith, who had been released, and in reference to whom the Judge—the notorious Judge Lawson—in putting the case to the jury pointed out that there was comparatively little evidence, and that all probability of law and justice in Ireland would not suffer if they were acquitted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had said that a change of venue was justified on the ground of intimidation. It was rather too late for the Government to plead that change of venue was necessary when there had been the successful prosecutions in the case of the Dublin assassinations and the attempt on the life of Mr. Field conducted to a successful issue in the City where the offences had been committed. The change of venue from Armagh to Antrim had been necessary in order that the unfortunate people might be prevented from

    1801
    proving their innocence. He trusted the result of the debate would induce the Government to investigate the case of Coleman, and that if they found the evidence as slight as that against Smith they would not wait till blood spitting or some more fatal malady had set in before they opened the prison doors to him. It was not the first time that there had been an amnesty movement in Ireland, out of which great benefits had come to the Irish people; and the Crown Officials in Ireland might depend upon it that no exertions, no expenditure, no risk, no odium would be shrunk from in order to procure the release by the Irish people, and their Representatives, from the horrible penalty of penal servitude of those whom public opinion in Ireland doomed to be innocent.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he heard with great surprise the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland that he had given directions that in no case was the religion of a juror to be made the cause of his rejection. The Attorney General for Ireland might wish his Colleagues to believe that he had no desire to pack juries; but the trials in Dublin, where there were large numbers of Roman Catholics upon the panel, and only Protestants were selected, pointed to the contrary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not when he conducted a certain trial in Dublin deny that the jury was packed. In that case he distinctly heard him say that it was necessary to pack the jury. The case he referred to was that of his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), who was tried for writing an article attacking the system of jury packing. He was surprised that when the fact was patent to every peasant in Ireland, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should stand up and deny its existence. He did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be contented to be tried by others than those of his own religion, or who were opposed to his political friends.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had sat night after night, and heard his right hon. and learned Colleague (the Attorney General for Ireland) attacked and abused, and there were few Members of the House who, perhaps, knew more clearly than he how entirely unfounded those attacks and censures were. His right hon. and
    1802
    learned Colleague needed no defender, since be had proved to-night how ably, eloquently, and completely he could defend himself; and, although it was said that his right hon. and learned Friend had used the quibbles of a Petty Sessions practitioner, those who heard that criticism would probably come to the conclusion that if the charges against him were equally well-founded, he need care very little for the attacks made against him. He (the Attorney General) know something of the responsibility of a Law Officer of the Crown; but his right hon. and learned Friend had had to perform those duties in a situation of peculiar difficulty, and in a country where crime was popular. [Cries of "No!"] Well, where crime was rendered popular. He had had to discharge his duties under circumstances that would appal most men, in a country where the Judges stood in danger of their lives, and where jurymen who fulfilled the obligation of their oaths were attempted to be murdered. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had said nine-tenths of the people of Ireland hated the Government of Ireland. What had the hon. Member done to lesson that number? [Cheers.] From these cheers he gathered that the hon. Member had sought to add to their number, and that he had sought to add to the number of jurymen who hated the Government and hated the administration of the law, and who would do nothing if they could to bring guilty men to justice. Against the men who had helped to produce this condition of things his right hon. and learned Friend in Ireland had had to contend, and night by night he had had to stand by and hear his Colleague accused. He knew how careful and jealous the Attorney General for Ireland had always been to see that nothing should be done to the prejudice of any accused person, and how he had endeavoured to give to everyone the opportunity of proving his innocence. He therefore hoped it would be thought not unnatural, when he heard all this abuse, that he should find it impossible to remain silent. It was not for him to speak in general terms of what might be done if a different tone were adopted by hon. Members; but when the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) said there had often been a period of great

    1803
    amnesty in Ireland, was he not aware there was not one of those who had spoken in the spirit of the hon. Member for Monaghan who did not know that he was preventing the recurrence of those periods? When they were attacking the administration of the law, however pure, however fair, however just, must they not know that they were incurring a responsibility beyond the mere responsibility of personal attack in the language that had been heard? They must know that, beyond that, they were bringing upon themselves the responsibility, which the people of Ireland ought to cast upon them, of making it necessary to administer the law sternly, untempered with that mercy, which, the moment it was shown, was used only for the purpose of attacking his right hon. and learned Friend while endeavouring to do his duty as faithfully as any just Minister of the Crown had ever performed it.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, a more vicious principle had never been expounded than that just expounded by the Attorney General for England. The hon. and learned Gentleman argued that they must not protest against injustice, or else they must not hope for mercy. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that he could terrorize the Irish Party in the House of Commons into silence when justice demanded speech he was very mistaken, for they would treat him and his mercy with contempt. The Attorney General for Ireland had practically admitted the whole case which had been brought against the House with regard to jury packing. He had argued that a Catholic ought to be satisfied to be tried by a jury of Protestants. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman like to be tried by a jury of Catholics when political and religious feeling was running high? In countries where the circumstances tended to moderate the rancours and hatreds of creed, it was unconstitutional or unjust to place the life and liberty of any man in the hands of a jury of a different creed. In Ireland, where political distrust and hatred existed in its acutest form, it was nothing more than moral murder to throw a man into the hands of jurors of an opposite creed. If they told the Protestants of Ireland that they looked to them to find verdicts, he could conceive no tactics more calculated to
    1804
    create exasperation among one set of people and arrogance in another class. There was no more disgraceful record in the modern judicial life of Ireland than the convictions in the Crossmaglen case. If the Government continued to pursue the system now in force, if they took their informers from the lowest class, if they coaxed, nursed, and bribed them, and made it a more brilliant career to be an informer than to be an honest man, if they persisted in the system of obtaining sham evidence by means of solitary imprisonment, and if when the skin of the British Lion fell short they pieced it out with the skin of the fox, it would be impossible for any honest man in Ireland to think his life or his property was safe. He wished now to refer to a case of police violence which came under his own observation during the recent Sligo Election. While he and some other gentlemen were proceeding peacefully to a place of meeting a number of policemen disposed themselves artistically across the highway. They refused to leave the road, and when one gentleman, Mr. Brennan, raised his hand as a signal to be allowed to pass, and said "keep back," two of the constables sprang upon him with a ferocity that could not have been surpassed had he been a criminal seized in the act of murder. They twisted his arms and dragged him to the police barracks, and in the evening at a late hour he was conveyed before a magistrate. He (Mr. Sexton), speaking as an eye-witness, was in a position to say that Mr. Brennan only put up his hand, and though several witnesses deposed to the same effect, and there was only the evidence of two policemen to the contrary, this respectable gentleman had since been find £2. He would not disgust the ears of the House by detailing the language used towards himself and other popular Representatives by the police; but speaking of this particular case, with the facts of which he was himself acquainted by observation, as well as his hon. Colleague (Mr. Lynch), he was entitled to claim a public sworn inquiry. He would content himself with saying that such was the feeling engendered in the mind of every official in Ireland, from the lowest to the highest, by the feeling of protection by the Government, that no meanness or enormity was impossible. He supposed

    1805
    this was what was called a Constitutional Government. Nothing could be more absurd than the speeches they had heard from the Treasury Bench. Of what avail were the platitudes, the empty phrases, and the windy, unmeaning declamations of right hon. Gentlemen for the purposes of conciliation, while among the Officials of Ireland, from the Viceroy on his throne to the meanest constable in a village police barracks, the surest way to promotion was a course of insult and discourtesy to the people?
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the indulgence of the House for a few moments while he referred to a Question which he had put to the President of the Board of Trade on the subject of the maladministration of the Suez Canal by its local officials—he did not say its Directors. He rested his case upon a very serious indictment which had been published by the Agent of the Peninsula and Oriental Company at Suez, and not, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, upon "vague gossip." Further, there was the testimony of the Alexandria correspondent of a public journal, who stated that "the incapacity of the administration of the Company, its utter disregard of justice, and arbitrary proceedings, had rendered the Company thoroughly detested throughout Egypt." That was all the evidence he would trouble the House with at this period of the Session; but he might add that he had received a number of private communications to the same effect, and that a Member of the House largely interested in commerce, and a supporter of the Government, whose name he was not at liberty to mention, had told him that he was perfectly right in his charges and the President of the Board of Trade perfectly wrong. He felt called upon to make this statement because he had been accused, not only by the President of the Board of Trade, but also by the Home Secretary, of bringing charges for which there was no foundation. On this point he had only to add that if the charges were not substantiated by him next Session he would withdraw them. Another matter to which he would briefly refer was the answer given by the Secretary to the Admiralty to some perfectly fair Questions respecting the number of Her
    1806
    Majesty's ships at Madagascar and the Mauritius. He was at a loss to understand why, under some vague fear of offending the French Government, that information was refused, There was nothing of an offensive character in the request. It was a matter in which the country had a deep interest, and the refusal of the Government to furnish the information was one of the most extraordinary, he might say pusillanimous, proceedings ever known in that House. Parliament was kept entirely in the dark as to the facts of those grave and painful incidents, while the Prime Minister made loose and partizan statements out-of-doors. Before the right of moving the adjournment of the House at Question time had been taken away from private Members, no Minister would have ventured to give such an answer.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  INDIA—EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS—THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

    COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [22nd August], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    And which Amendment was,
    To leave out the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the interests of India and of the United Kingdom, it is desirable that India should not hear the charge of the Consular and Agency expenditure on the Persian Gulf, and upon the Tigris and Euphrates, and that the concerns of British trade and commerce in Western Asia should be in the hands of officers more completely responsible to the Home Government,"—(Mr. Arthur Arnold,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had hoped the Ilbert Bill would not be made a Party question. The emphatic statement of the Prime Minister gave assurance that the Government would not allow the matter to be dealt with in a way that would produce trouble in the future. If the amendment of the law which he supported in India in 1872 had boon carried, the present agitation would

    1807
    have been entirely averted. He warmly I approved the conduct of Lord Ripon in general, and he was no way to blame in respect to this Bill. He denied that there was any authority for the statement that nine-tenths of the Civil servants of India were against the Bill. He entirely denied that the alarm said to be existing in India was at all of a spontaneous character; it was an artificial alarm created by lawyers, and others no better than lawyers. They were told of telegrams that had been received describing outrages that had been committed on European women. It was now six weeks or two months since those telegrams arrived, and he had searched the Indian papers for some substantiation of them, and had failed to find any. He asserted that the panic among the Europeans in India was ridiculously exaggerated, though, no doubt, a certain amount of panic did exist. They were told that in India people were liable to false charges; but if they had competent Native Judges and magistrates, they were the very men to sift out the truth or falsehood of charges made by the Natives. Before 1833 Natives were entirely without any rights or freedom, and in that year was passed the law that no man should be excluded from any office whatever by reason of his race or colour; and yet they were told that a long course of legislation had exempted Europeans from being subject to the jurisdiction of Natives. The Acts of Parliament passed by the Government of India did not require the Government to choose Natives to fill these appointments whether they were fit or not. They were only Acts removing the legal disqualifications, and enabling the Government to appoint Natives if they thought it desirable to do so. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had asked him whether he would appoint a Native Governor General, and he had replied that under the Act of Parliament a Native was eligible if he was the most fit man—there was nothing in law to prevent it. He (Sir George Campbell) did not think a Native would be the most fit man for a long time to come. In rare instances to appoint Natives to lower positions was not an extreme step, but a very moderate one. They were told that some great authorities were arrayed against this proposal of the Governor
    1808
    General, and one or two authorities hostile to the measure had been prominently paraded before them, the chief one being the Calcutta High Court. That Court had been for some time out of humour with the Government. The Court had sent home a Protest against the Bill, which he admitted to be as able and as good a case as could be made against it. He did not in the least suspect the Chief Justice of being the writer of that Protest—it was not in his ultra-bigoted style; but this document had been put forward as well and ably as it was possible to do it. He (Sir George Campbell) had examined the Protest with great care, and he found that the Judges did not so much condemn the measure as they—with great elaboration and skill and force he admitted—set themselves to show that the measure was not really necessary, and that for a time it would have been possible to do without it. Well, he was quite willing to admit that if they were prepared to set aside Acts of Parliament requiring them to do these things, the particular measure which he had described, the comparatively small measure that the Government of India proposed, might have been postponed for a few years. He did not think that would have done a great deal of harm. If they could have foreseen the success of the agitation which had been got up, notwithstanding the Act of Parliament they might have been able to postpone this matter for a few years until quieter times came about, for there were much more important matters before the Government of India requiring to be dealt with. What he wished to press upon the House and Her Majesty's Government was this—that however it might have been desirable to postpone this measure before things came to the pass at which they were now, after this extreme and unscruplous agitation which had taken, place, it would lead to the greatest political evil if the Government were to give in. The Government was exercising its rightful power in the fulfilment of an Act of Parliament, and it would be an unpardonable thing to give in now. Not only would it be a great evil to give in to a European agitation of this kind, but it would be an enormous evil to yield, on account of the example it would give the Natives of the advantage and power of agitation. The educated Natives were

    1809
    very apt to follow the example which was set them in this matter. They familiarized themselves with our manners and with our literature, and hon. Members heard already of Native agitation being got up on the lines of our European agitations. Like the Irish, they might soon become ungovernable; and he therefore maintained that to teach them this lesson of agitation was an enormous political evil. If they came to govern India as Ireland was governed—if they had agitators in India such as they had in Ireland, and had Native political spouters making such speeches as the House had heard to-night from the opposite Benches, the 250,000,000 people under our sway in India would soon become ungovernable. The 250,000,000 people could never be governed as we were governing the 5,000,000 people of Ireland. It was, therefore, very much on this ground that he specially deprecated yielding to this agitation, and that he expressed his full hope and confidence that the Government would not give way. He had no doubt that when once the thing was done the agitation, though it might, perhaps, last for two or three months, would disappear, and things would settle down, the Europeans finding that they were not in a bit worse position than they were before. The whole thing would be settled in a very short space of time. The Government had expressed their opinion very decidedly, and he hoped they would stick to it. It seemed to him that the op-ponants of the policy of the Governor General had made the most of one point with regard to the statutory Civil servants. But it must be remembered that what had been done in this respect was due, not to Lord Ripon, but to the Earl of Lytton. Certain appointments which were reserved under the old system for Civil servants sent out to India were in future, upon certain conditions, to be open to Natives of proved merit and ability—these words, "of proved merit and ability," to be accepted in the ordinary sense. It seemed to him that the intention with which this course was taken had been altogether frustrated. What had been done had not been to offer facilities to Civil servants in lower appointments to rise to the higher positions, but young Native gentlemen of no proved merit or ability, simply on
    1810
    the certificate of their friends and relations that they were promising young men, had been selected. They had been selected because they were well connected. The Court had some justification in saying that this was a class of Civil servants to whom the law never intended that power should be intrusted, and there was on that point some fear that evil consequences might ensue; or, at all events, there was some ground for apprehension. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would maintain intact the proposed law now before the Governor General and Council of India. He trusted they might not make two bites at a cherry; but would, with regard to these questions of jurisdiction, do away with the disabilities of the Natives. They must always, however, endeavour to avoid the appointment of unfit persons to these offices. If there was to be any modification or exception in the law, then, in his opinion, these statutory Civil servants should not be entitled to exercise all the powers of covenanted Civil servants. He fully admitted that most Natives were not equal to Europeans, and he would utter a word of warning. They found in the Engineers' Department, where the appointments involved hard labour, that it was a difficult thing to get the Natives to accept them. Some of the Natives, of course a limited class, had adopted our manners and modes of thought, but had not acquired our backbone. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, and he might have expressed himself in a laughable manner; but at the same time he was expressing a very serious opinion. For instance, in the matter of local government—and he was all for local government—he had some doubts whether, if they put much political power into the hands of members of the small upper class, who would always be partizans of their own class, they might not, perhaps, find that they had gone a little too fast in this matter. As an illustration of what he meant, he would point to a particular case which had occurred in the present day, and which, he must say, had filled him with very great sorrow. Among that educated class of men in India who were more inclined to be politicians than to be engineers, or to do labourers' work, the most prominent man at the present time was Mr. Banerjee, who had been only lately released from prison, where he

    1811
    had been confined for contempt of Court. He repeated, the case of this man filled him with sorrow and grave doubts as to the political enfranchisement of the Natives. Banerjee was the first Native civilian who came to this country and obtained all the advantages of education, and, by his high talents and passing examinations, and long contact with Europeans, obtained a good position in the Civil Service. He had not only high talents, but also, as he had since abundantly proved, great energy. What happened to him? Why, he deliberately and systematically falsified his records. He subjected the suitors about his Court to difficulties and expense, in a manner which would have been impossible to a European. Moral sense in this man seemed to be utterly wanting. Unwilling as they were to acknowledge that this was the result of the first admission of a Native to the Civil Service, the Government of India and Her Majesty's Government at home were reluctantly compelled to remove this Native gentleman, as he was supposed to be, from the Civil Service for disgraceful conduct. What happened? Why, within a year or two, elective political institutions were granted to Calcutta, and this man had become the most prominent Native politician in the country. He was the most prominent politician in India—posed as the idol and the leading man amongst the party which might be called "Young India." This showed them how careful they must be in making these appointments, and it showed that there was some inequality between the Natives and the Europeans. They had entered upon a new course, and they must begin at the bottom, and gradually work their way up. That was all he had got to say on this particular subject. He hoped he had not detained the House unreasonably, seeing that one Member after another on the opposite side of the House had risen to express opposite views. Having expressed his opinions on these points, he felt it would be a farce to discuss the Indian Budget at this time of the morning. He thought that, able as was the speech of the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross), the hon. Member had fallen into the error which was habitual with Under Secretaries for India, and had put the matter in a too much coleur de
    1812
    rose shape. Indian finances were not so elastic as the Government seemed to think. We had not established a Surplus upon which we could rely for the accidents or possible debts of the future, and we still relied upon the Opium Revenue, which, long ago, had been admitted to be very precarious. Therefore, he was not prepared to admit that the finances of India were so prosperous as they had been described.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, although the hour and conditions of the House are not propitious, I think it is desirable, after some of the speeches that have boon made in this discussion, that I should make one or two observations on the subject of the Criminal Procedure Bill, the more especially as I was the Minister who was responsible for the approval by the Home Government of the introduction of that measure. In my opinion, whatever may be the merits and demerits of the measure, Lord Ripon has been, personally, most unfairly and unjustly assailed for the part he has taken in regard to its introduction. I am certain that Lord Ripon is the last man who would shrink from any responsibility which properly belongs to him; and not only does he not do so, but he is proud of the part he has taken in many measures which have been initiated by the Government of India, and which have brought upon him considerable unpopularity among the Europeans in India. But when we hear this measure represented, as it has been, as the outcome of Lord Ripon's sentimental policy, the result of his desire to attain popularity among the Natives of India, and of his insane desire for uniformity and to remove all anomalies, I think it is just to Lord Ripon that the facts relating to the introduction of this measure should be brought before Parliament. The introduction of the Bill at the present time is owing to the instrumentality of the Government of Bengal, and of the then Lieutenant Governor, Sir Ashley Eden. I am very much surprised to hear the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) state that Sir Ashley Eden was not responsible for the Government having brought forward the Bill in the manner, at the time, or, indeed, in the form in which it has been presented. Now, Sir, it happens that the despatch from the Government of

    1813
    India in reference to the measure quotes the opinion of the Government of Bengal upon a particular case it had before it, in which Sir Ashley Eden distinctly states the opinion that the time had now arrived when the distinction between Natives and the British officials in these respects ought to be removed, and the attention of the Government of India should be called to the subject. It may be open to him to say he did not recommend the introduction of the Bill; but it so happens that Sir Ashley Eden, coming fresh from India, has a second responsibility in this matter, inasmuch as he was a Member of the Council at home at the time the despatch of the Government of India asking for leave to introduce the Bill was received, and he was a party to the approval which the Home Government gave to the introduction of the measure. It therefore happens that Sir Ashley Eden is responsible in a double sense, and I am at a loss to know what authority the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire has for the statement he has made. I must ask the House to consider for a moment the former proceedings with regard to this question. In 1870 a very powerful Commission, which sat in this country for the purpose of revising the Indian Criminal Law, and which included Lords Romilly and Sherbrooke, recommended that further steps should be taken for assimilating the law as regarded Natives and European subjects of the Queen; and they expressed their regret that further progress had not been made in this direction.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,resuming, said: A Bill was introduced in India, in 1872, founded upon the Report of that Commission, and containing provisions which, if not identical, are strictly analogous to those of the measure we are now considering. That Bill was subjected to an examination by a Select Committee of the Legislative Council, and, in consequence of what was at the time avowedly a compromise, the provision extending the powers to try certain cases by Native officials was struck out. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) yesterday
    1814
    alluded to that as a compromise, and added that it was accepted at the time as a permanent settlement of the question. Now, although I am of opinion that it was a compromise, I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire that it was then accepted, or has ever since been acknowledged, as a permanent settlement. On the contrary, four of the most distinguished Members of the Legislative Council thought it necessary to move an Amendment to the Bill in the Legislative Council, proposing a provision exactly similar to that which we are now discussing. Those four Members not only recorded their votes, but, in speeches, gave their opinions why the compromise which had been arrived at would not be a permanent settlement; and other Members of the Council announced their opinion that it could only be defended as a compromise, and not on broad and general grounds. That was the state of things when the matter was brought by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal under the attention of the Government of India, and before Lord Ripon. Did Lord Ripon force the measure on a reluctant and unwilling Council? His first act was to consult all the Local Governments of India in a despatch which might be said to be almost colourless, and in which he expressed no preferences; and the result of that proceeding is summed up in the 5th paragraph of the despatch of the Government of India now before the House. The substance of that despatch states that, with one exception, there was among the Local Governments of India a universal consensus of opinion that the inequalities and disabilities on Native magistrates ought to be removed, although there was some difference of opinion as to the precise extent to which that measure should go. When the proposal for the introduction of this Bill came to England, it was not necessary for me to overrule a reluctant Council for the purpose of supporting the Government of India. Hon. Members are probably aware of the character of the Council of the Secretary of State in this country. It certainly is not a Council of a Radical or a revolutionary character. If it has a fault it errs, perhaps, too much on the side of prudence and timidity, and it is not at all likely to consent to anything of a revolutionary

    1815
    or a dangerous character. Yet the proposal for the introduction of this Bill was assented to by the Council of the Secretary of State without a division and without a protest. It may be supposed that it was not fully considered. On the contrary, everyone who is aware of the procedure of that Council knows that no measure of this kind can pass the Council without being thoroughly considered and thought of. In the first place, it has to be submitted to the scrutiny of a Committee, composed of those Members of the Council who are supposed to be most specially conversant with the subject; and, then, a copy of the despatch is placed in the hands of every Member before it is discussed at the Council, and no question of this kind can possibly be decided without being fully brought before every Member of the Council. Everyone who has experience of this Body must be aware that the idea of the Council sanctioning anything of a dangerous character is absolutely ridiculous. As to the present measure, it was recommended upon general principles, and it was recommended on grounds of administrative expediency. Natives have already been introduced into the Civil Service of India, and it is hoped they will be introduced in still greater numbers. It has always been admitted that they are specially fitted for judicial functions, much more so than for executive or administrative functions. If you are going to employ them at all, it is necessary that they should be employed in responsible positions; and the effect of maintaining the present disability is that Natives, when they arrive at a certain grade, must either be placed in the districts where Europeans are not to be found—that is, in the poorest and worst districts—or else, if they are appointed to districts where there is a European population, in the case of a European being accused, the witnesses and all concerned must be sent out of the district to a distance, perhaps, of hundreds of miles. The subject-matter of the Bill is, in reality, rather a matter of detail than of principle; and if it were now proposed for the first time that Native Judges should have jurisdiction over Europeans, I could understand that the European population might enter a very strong protest against the admission of such a principle. But the fact
    1816
    is that long ago it was admitted, for Native Judges have been appointed in the principle cities, and the power of Native Judges to try prisoners of all descriptions is precisely identical with that of European Judges. They have exercised those powers not only without complaint, but, by the universal testimony of those who have experience of the matter, to the complete satisfaction of all concerned. It is said that the case is different from that of the country districts, because in the cities those powers are exercised in the presence of a vigilant European Bar and a vigilant public opinion. But the fact is, that wherever Europeans go a public opinion is created. Owing to daily increasing intercourse, and to the extension of the telegraphs, there are probably but few places in India where European counsel cannot, if necessary, be obtained, and where some public opinion does not exist. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) to the Minute of the Judges of the High Court of Calcutta. It is somewhat characteristic of the extreme unfairness with which this controversy has been conducted in India that that Minute was sent home, but that the Minute of Mr. Justice Mitler, which was appended to it, has never been sent home. I agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken that it is, on the whole, an elaborate plea for delay in the adoption of this measure, rather than an argument in opposition to the measure itself. But, able as that document is, I cannot admit that it is invested with any judicial authority whatever. The partizan character of that document is most strikingly exemplified in the 18th paragraph. Sir Stewart Bayley would be supposed, by anyone reading that paragraph, to be an opponent of the measure, whereas he was responsible for its introduction, and was its supporter. The Judges say that the privilege involved is the privilege of the prisoner, not the privilege of the Judge. No doubt, the first requisite in judicial proceedings is that a prisoner should have a fair trial; but it is no less important, if confidence in our rule is to exist throughout India, that there should be a general belief that an offence will be punished by whomsoever committed; and that belief will not be extended if the Natives see that while a European Judge can

    1817
    try cases of all descriptions, a European, when he commits an offence against a Native, can only be tried by a person of his own nationality. Is not that practice likely to raise in the minds of the Natives a suspicion—or, at least, a prejudice against our rule—that we think it necessary, in the interests of our countrymen, to require that they shall have something more than a fair and impartial trial, and that they are to be tried by men who may be presumed to have some bias in their favour? What are the real causes of the opposition to the measure? It may, by some, be thought sufficient to say that the Anglo-Indian, whatever may be his merits—and, no doubt, they are great—is not a person who is distinguished by an exceptionally calm judgment. Agitation of the same character has been seen before, when there was just as little foundation for it. Lord Macaulay, Lord Canning, and other Anglo-Indian statesmen experienced the same kind of opposition from Anglo-Indians; but all these reproaches have recoiled, not against the statesmen with regard to whom they were uttered, but against the persons uttering them themselves. Probably many hon. Members have read the description written by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) of the agitation which arose in India on the passing by Lord Macaulay of what was called the Black Act. The pages to which I refer read as if they had been written about this very agitation. The same alarm was manifested then, and the same prophecies were made; and I doubt not that the result in the present instance will be the same, and that the prophecies which are made will not be fulfilled. I believe that the cause of the prevalent excitement is to be found, not in this measure, but in the general course of policy that has been pursued both by this Government and the late Government. It has been the policy of Governments, for some years past, to impress upon the Government of India the desirability of obtaining the assistance of the Native population, as far as possible, in the government of that country. Over and over again that policy has been inculcated from home. In 1879 a Resolution was passed which limited appointments of the value of 200 rupees a-month to officers of the Army and to Natives.
    1818
    That restriction has been rigidly enforced, and has met with all kinds of opposition from non-official classes of Europeans, who think that all the appointments ought to be reserved for them. The same spirit was shown when it was determined that admission to the Engineering College at Rhorkee should be confined to Natives. I do not say that the agitation has been got up entirely by the lawyers; but I could quote passages in letters in the Indian papers in which it is admitted that the agitation was directed against the policy of the Home Government in providing appointments for Native civilians, while there were many Europeans without appointments. The policy of Her Majesty's Government is, in my opinion, founded upon considerations of the most practical character. Whatever differences of opinion there may be, there can, in my opinion, be very little doubt that India is insufficiently governed at the present time. I believe there are many districts of India in which the number of officials is altogether insufficient, and that is owing to the fact that the Indian Revenue would not bear the strain if a sufficient number of Europeans were appointed. The Government of India cannot afford to spend more than they do on the administration of the country; and if the country is to be better governed, that can only be done by the employment of the best and most intelligent of the Natives in the Service. There is a further reason, in my opinion, why this policy should be adopted, and that is that it is not wise to educate the people of India, to introduce among them your civilization, and your progress, and your literature, and, at the same time, to tell them they shall never have any chance of taking any part or share in the administration of the affairs of their country, except by their getting rid, in the first instance, of their European Rulers. Surely, it would not be wise to tell a patriotic Native of India that. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire said that it was the policy of the Romans to carry the privilege of Roman citizenship wherever they went. That is, in my opinion, precisely what we are trying to do by this policy; we are attempting to extend to a few of the best Natives of India the full privileges of British citizenship; we are attempting to bring a few of them within the rights

    1819
    and powers and privileges of governing themselves as they might be able to govern themselves under a Native Administration; and if it is wise to attempt to do this, surely it is wise to trust to them thoroughly and to invest them with all the powers necessary to place them on an equality with those with whom they are equal. No doubt, the discussion which has taken place may lead to some reconsideration of the details of the Bill; and although, all the Reports have not been received from the Local Governments, I believe the majority of them are of opinion that the withdrawal of the Bill wall be an error. At the same time, the Government of India will be quite prepared to give every consideration to any reasonable suggestion that may be made for the amendment of the Bill, though they hold that the withdrawal of the measure in deference to the agitation would be an error, and a very fatal one. I do not wish to speak disrespectfully, but much of the agitation has proceeded from the non-official class in India; and I must point out that they are not responsible for the government of the country. It is the Government of India alone that is responsible for the government of that country; and, if this measure is to be withdrawn in deference to an agitation of that sort, I have no hesitation in saying that the Government of India must be altogether revised. If we are going to invest a class, now under no responsibility, with the power of interposing a veto upon legislation which is thought necessary and wise by the Government of India, we must devise some mode of revising the form of government so as to invest them with responsibility. I wish, to say, in conclusion, that I am unwilling that this debate should terminate without Lord Ripon being assured that he has heartily, fully, and completely the support of his Colleagues at home who have assented to the introduction of the Bill.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    ACCOUNTS considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it appears, by the Accounts laid before this House, that the Ordinary Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March 1882, was £62,913,743; the Revenue from Productive Public Works, including the Net Traffic Receipts from Guaranteed Companies, was £10,782,063, making the total Revenue of India for that year £73,695,806; that the Ordinary Expenditure in India and in England, including Charges for the Collection of the Revenue, for Ordinary Public Works, and for Interest on Debt, exclusive of that for Productive Public Works, was £61,464,074; the Expenditure on Productive Public Works (Working Expenses and Interest), including the payments to Guaranteed Companies for Interest and Surplus Profits, was £9,649,005, making a total Charge for that year of £71,113,079; that there was an excess of Revenue over Expenditure in that year of £2,382,727; that the Capital Ependiture on Productive Public Works in the same year was £2,269,861; and that there was also a Capital "Outlay on the East Indian Railway of £1,041,562, including £586,300 India 3½ per cent. Stock, issued in redemption of portion of the East Indian Railway Annuity.
    Resolution reported, and agreed to.
    MR. WADDYsaid, there was one question he wished to ask, and only one. He wished to know from the Government whether anything had ever been done to replace the Famine Fund? It would be remembered that one of the most disgraceful Governments that India ever had—he meant Lord Lytton's—had extorted by extraordinary pressure from the people of India large sums of money, about£1,500,000, for the Famine Fund, and, having given the most fulsome pledges of the honour of Great Britain that they would not spend it on anything but Famine Works had spent every penny of it on gunpowder. He wished to know whether anything had been done to replace that money?
    MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, that part of the sum had been expended on Famine Belief, and the rest on Protective Works and the payment of Debt.

  QUESTION.

    SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he should like to ask, with a view of relieving anxiety, Whether the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) could give any information as to the rumoured important movement of troops in Natal—whether they had been moved across the border with the view of security, or what was being done with them?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The instructions given are that the troops should be removed to the border of the Reserve. They have been distinctly ordered not to enter the Reserve or Zululand, but to await further instructions.

  MOTION.

    PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ADJOURNMENT.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Perhaps I may say that as I understand there will be no Business to be transacted to-morrow, therefore, I move that the House at its rising adjourn until Saturday at 2 o'olock.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House at its rising adjourn until Saturday, at Two o'clock."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
    Motion agreed to.

    AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.
    Reasons for disagreeing to the Amendment made by The Lords reported, and agreed to:—To be communicated to The Lords.
    AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Reasons for disagreeing to the Amendment made by the Lords reported, and agreed to:—To be communicated to The Lords.

    MAIL CONTRACTS (HOLYHEAD AND KINGSTOWN).
    Ordered, That the Contract dated 20th August 1883, between Her Majesty's Postmaster General and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, for the conveyance of Mails between Holyhead and Kingstown, be approved.—(Mr. Courtney.)
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'olock till Saturday.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Harbour Accommodation* [No. 222].
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) *.
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Post Office (Money Orders) Acts Amendment (219).
Committee—Report—Epidemic and other Diseases Prevention* (213).
Third Reading—Bankruptcy * (211); Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections)* (198); Medals * (208); Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) * (205); Public Works Loans * (209); Labourers (Ireland) * (183); Municipal Corporations (Borough Constables) * (214), and passed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) BILL.
(The Lord Thurlow.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  Order of the Day for the Consideration of Commons' Amendments read.
  Moved, "That the Commons' Amendments to this Bill be now considered."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked whether there were any regulations in the Bill as to the inspection of fishing boats?
  LORD THURLOWsaid, that that question had been very carefully considered, and there were very minute regulations upon that point.
  Motion agreed to; Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 219.)
(The Lord Thurlow.)
POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 219.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD THURLOW,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the Bill was to extend the use of postal orders to the Colonies. It was intended that the commanding officers of vessels serving abroad should be authorized to issue these postal orders to the men serving under them, in order that they might be able to transmit readily their wages to their friends. Under the Post Office Money Orders Act, 1880, the Post Office had no power to deviate from the prescribed amount for which orders were made, and under this Bill the Post-master General took power to deviate in the amount of postal orders within the limits of 1s. and £1.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS, AND OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
Moved, "That the Second Report from the Select Committee be considered."—(The Earl of Redesdale.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he must express his satisfaction with the selection that had been made for the Office of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. He had no doubt that the gallant Officer who had been appointed might be relied on to bear in mind their Lordships' recommendation as to filling up vacancies in the Office with old soldiers and sailors.
Motion agreed to.
Second Report considered (according to order), and agreed to.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— STATUE OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, What course it is intended to adopt with reference to the equestrian statue of the late Duke of Wellington, said My Lords, I have put this Notice on the Paper not only with a view to ascertain the mode in which Her Majesty's Government propose to deal with the equestrian statue of the late Duke of Wellington, but to indicate the course which I think may recommend itself to this House and to the public. I have long intended to offer some remarks upon the question, and am not impelled to do so by the correspondence in the journals it has recently elicited, although that correspondence is entitled to attention from your Lordships. The whole change by which the statue has been displaced seems to me erroneous. With no authority from Parliament, a large and intricate derangement has occurred. The Green Park, which concerns the masses of the people, has been seriously limited. Constitution Hill, which is associated with a memorable era, has been wantonly encroached upon. The ordinary passenger on foot, who comes on the right hand side from Kensington to London, when he reaches Hyde Park Corner is exposed to the necessity of

  1715
  walking among carriages about 300 yards, or else of crossing Piccadilly. Last of all, the statue of the late Duke of Wellington has been removed from a site which, if at first it led to hesitation and to criticism, has during many years enjoyed the favourable suffrage of the millions who habitually looked up to it. There was another and a stronger ground for leaving it inviolate. The late Duke of Wellington was known to value, known to approve, and known to be tenacious of it. This circumstance is rendered clear by a passage in the recent Life of Bishop Wilberforce, which bears upon it. I have myself particularly ascertained it during the present year from a well-known member of society whose name I will not mention, but who bad uncommon access to the late Duke of Wellington. The statement does not, therefore, merely rest upon a general impression or a general tradition. Now, the principle might safely be advanced that such men as the late Duke of Wellington are better qualified than others to detect the point from which their statues may convey a useful lesson to posterity. The choice of a position was the very matter to which his eye had been habitually directed. But, putting that aside, to hold his wishes sacred would be no exaggerated tribute, if any tribute was desirable. Should critics still maintain that such a want on his part was imaginary, the true answer will burst to many lips—as a great poet has supplied it—
  "O reason not the need, the basest beggar
  Is in the meanest things superfluous;
  Allow to nature but what nature needs,
  Man's life is cheap as beast's."
  However, I will only add a word as to the course which may be taken to approximate as far as possible to an instruction so authoritative, and to reduce to the lowest point the wanton deviation from it. The figure may be placed upon the arches in line with Apsley House, which are not yet enveloped in the ruin the Board of Works has fancifully organized. In the artistic world this counsel has been urged already. There is one decisive reason in its favour. The locality of Hyde Park Corner for many years has concentrated the memorials of the late Duke of Wellington, such as Apsley House, the statue of Achilles, the statue which engages us. That concentration ought not to be tampered
  1716
  with. It is the reward and the attraction of innumerable travellers. We must remember that, although we are familiar with it London does not belong only to ourselves, but to the world, the Colonies, the Empire. We ought not to disturb a scene which has become the property of Europe, India, or Australia. But if we only think of what is near, the concentration I allude to keeps the Duke of Wellington more vividly among us, and thus retards, at least, the period of national decline, which the Board of Works, no doubt, would joyfully accelerate. I put the Question on the Paper.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, he ventured to ask the Government to take into consideration the fact that the statue, ugly as it was, was from a portrait of the Duke and the horse he rode, and, therefore, was of great historical value. If it were destroyed, it could never be replaced. Although it was impossible that any horse could have had such a head, still it was taken from the celebrated "Copenhagen."
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that if the statue were destroyed, it would give general dissatisfaction, and would be regrettable, because it had been viewed with some satisfaction by the Duke himself, who being free from personal vanity, in his characteristic manner, said that "it would do as well as anything else;" and he trusted the Government would have it replaced in its former position as far as was now practicable.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked whether the Government would consider the expediency of replacing the statue on the arch? That would save great expense; and he thought that many people would be glad to find an old friend back very much as they had been accustomed to see him.
  LORD THURLOWbegged to inform the noble Lord, in reply to his Question, that the Committee to whom the First Commissioner of Works referred that subject, had unanimously expressed their opinion that the statue should be recast, that a smaller statue more or less of the same character should be made, and that it should be erected on the site where it now stood. Her Majesty's Government would submit a Vote to Parliament early next Session on that subject, and until that time no action of any kind on the matter would be taken by

  1717
  the Government. He thought, perhaps, that reply might be satisfactory to the noble Lord opposite who had joined in the discussion. He was afraid that he could not hold out any hope that the statue would be replaced on the arch.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he regretted extremely the decision which had been come to, and thought it was a great mistake. To break up the statue was a very barbarous idea. There was no doubt that it was not a wonderful work of art; but let those who complained of it on that score look at the equestrian statues in Trafalgar Square and the City. As a portrait of the Duke and his horse the statue was excellent, and he did not think it could be repeated and made so good. Everything about it was good except the feathers in the cocked hat, which could easily be removed. There were other parts of the country which would be glad to have the statue, and why not let them have the opportunity of accepting it? An artistic horse was not necessarily like a real horse; generally it was not. He believed that the public would be disappointed if the statue were destroyed, and an imaginary man and an imaginary horse, highly artistic, perhaps, in character, were put in its place.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he thought that the statue, with all its demerits, which, in his opinion, were much exaggerated, presented a bonâ fide portrait of the man and the horse; and it would be well to pause before incurring a great waste of public money and substitute another statue with a very doubtful prospect of effecting any real improvement.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, there was no doubt the statue was identified in a great degree with the Duke himself, who took an interest in its execution and also in the likeness of the horse. It might not be a perfect work; but who could guarantee that any now work would be perfect or good?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he considered that the First Commissioner of Works had followed the most sensible course in regard to that matter. He had taken the advice of some of the most recognized good judges on the question—architects, painters, sculptors, and gentlemen who had devoted all their lives to such subjects, and he had also put
  1718
  on the Committee the nearest Representative of the Great Duke himself. Those Gentlemen had come to an unanimous decision, and he was surprised that their Lordships should seek to override it. Whatever might be the opinion of some individual critics, he thought it would be very inadvisable to insist on that statue being replaced where it was before. The Great Duke's feelings had been referred to. Now he understood from high authority that when the Duke was appealed to on the matter, his answer was that he did not wish the statue to go up there, but being up there, there would be something ridiculous in taking it down. That action having, however, been taken, it would surely add to the ridiculous, which ought to be wholly disconnected from the Duke's name, if that statue were to be put up again in the same place.

MALTA—THE MALTESE NOBILITY— COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGE.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH,who had given Notice that he would ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will place on the Table the last Report of the Committee of the Maltese Nobility on the claims of certain members of that body, said, that the noble Earl was not now in his place; but he understood that there would be no objection to the production of that Report.
  Address for, "Last Report of the Committee of the Maltese Nobility on the claims of certain members of that body,"
  —(The Viscount Sidmouth,)—agreed to.
  House adjourned during pleasure; and resumed by The Earl of CORK and ORRERY.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the amendment made by the Lords to which the Commons had disagreed and on which the Lords have insisted agreed to; and with the further amendment made by the Lords disagreed to, with a reason for such disagreement: The said reason to he printed, and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 220.)

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the amendment made by the Lords to which the Commons

  1719
  had disagreed and on which the Lords have insisted agreed to; with the amendment made by the Commons to an amendment made by the Lords to which the Lords have disagreed not insisted on; with the amendment made by the Lords to an amendment made by the Commons to the Lords amendments agreed to; and with the further amendment made by the Lords disagreed to, with a reason for such disagreement: The said reason to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 221.)

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Read 1a; and to be read 2a To-morrow: (The Earl Granville); and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered To-morrow in order to its being dispensed with.
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Three o'clock.