Sitting of 18 July 1884

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Ventilation of the House, appointed and nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS—Votes 26, 27.
Resolutions [July 17] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Public Works Loans* [299]; Revenue, &c.* [300].
First Reading — Post Office Protection [297]; Improvement of Lands (Ecclesiastical Benefices)* [298].
Second Reading—Prisons [293]; Turnpike Acts Continuance* [294]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [278]; Teachers' Residences (Ireland)* [288].
Report of Select Committee—Burgh Police and Health (Scotland)* [No. 286].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Naval and Greenwich Hospital Pensions* [276]; Cholera Hospitals (Ireland)* [289].
Considered as amended—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders* [259].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK (MONEY) BILL.
  COLONEL GERARD SMITHmoved to nominate a Select Committee on the

  1597
  Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock (Money) Bill:—Admiral EGERTON, Mr. WHITLEY, Mr. THOROLD ROGERS, Mr. MACFARLANE, and Mr. SEVERNE.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment. He wished to know whether it was competent for him to propose an addition to the Members of the Committee?
  MR. SPEAKERreplied in the affirmative, but added that it would involve the postponement of the Bill.
  COLONEL GERARD SMITHsaid, he would postpone the Motion until Monday.
  MR. MAGNIACsuggested that it should be put off until Tuesday.
  COLONEL GERARD SMITHsaid, he could not consent to any further delay in a matter of this kind. It had already been delayed for a week at the instance of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson). He had no objection to add four names to the Committee, and he would not oppose the Amendment of which the hon. Member had given Notice, provided the Committee of Selection proceeded to nomination forthwith.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that if the hon. and gallant Member assented to his proposal he would have nothing further to say.
  Ordered, that the Committee be nominated on Monday.

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY QUARTERMASTERS—INCREASE OF PAY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that the largest increase of pay granted to the Army Quartermasters in 1881 was tenpence per day; whether this increase is, at the end of five years' service, reduced to fourpence a-day; whether the Quartermasters' half pay was, in 1881, increased from ten shillings per day to a retired pay of £200 a-year; and, whether he is aware that the Quartermasters' responsibilities have been heavily increased, while their hopes of succeeding to a regimental Paymastership have been blighted by recent legislation?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There may be periods in a Quartermaster's service at which, under certain unfavourable circumstances, the increase of pay is not large; but, on the whole, a substantial increase of pay and retired pay was, after full consideration, granted by the Royal Warrant of 1881, as well as improved honorary and relative rank, and, therefore, increased allowances and widows' pension. The responsibilities of Quartermasters, as of all other regimental officers, have been increased by the adoption of short service.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS — CARMEEN DIVISION, COOTEHILL.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it has come under his notice that, at the sworn inquiry in Cootehill Workhouse on the 8th instant, relative to the validity of the late election for Carmeen Division, Mr. Armstrong, Local Government Board Inspector, formally ruled that the solicitor for Mr. Owen McCabe, defeated candidate, had no right to an inspection of the claims under Form A 1 to the votes given to which he objected; will any steps be taken to remedy the injury done to the case of Mr. McCabe by their non-production; is it the fact that, at the same inquiry, it transpired that Vaughan Montgomery, Esq. J.P., Crilly, Aughnacluy, county Tyrone, lodged a claim to vote as lessor of Patrick McCabe, Mountain Lodge, on a valuation of £19 10 s., and that, by the sworn evidence of Mr. P. McCabe, his lease, and rent receipts, it was proved that Mr. Montgomery had no interest, directly or indirectly, in this holding; and, will he ask this magistrate for an explanation of the filing of this claim?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is the fact that the Inspector, Mr. Armstrong, ruled as stated in the case of Mr. Owen M'Cabe, and the Local Government Board are at present in communication with him on the subject. With regard to the claim made by Mr. Montgomery, the facts appear, from the information at present before me, to be as alleged. Mr. Montgomery will be asked for an explanation of the circumstances. It is right to observe that he was not present at the inquiry.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—FOOTPATHS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether James Loughlin, Thaddeus Sexton, and Martin Loughlin, of Ballintogher, county Sligo, tenants of William Beamish, M.D., Mrs. Alice Rogers, and the representatives of the Earl of Aid-borough, have recently been prevented from using the footpath loading from their holdings to the public road, which they had been using for thirty years, and are now without any regular means of communication with the highway; whether, at the time of the fixing of judicial rents for the holdings of these three tenants, about eighteen months ago, an undertaking was given to them by the agent, Mr. Anderson, that they would be provided with a suitable passage to the public road, and whether the Land Commission, or the local Sub-Commission, has record or cognizance of the undertaking in question; whether the landlord is bound to provide the tenants with a way to the public road; and, what means of redress are open to the tenants?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I understand that the alleged right of way claimed by the three tenants named in the Question is disputed, not by the landlords or their representatives, but by another tenant; and that the matter has been the subject of much litigation, having been decided in favour of the claimants by the County Court Judge, whose ruling was afterwards reversed on appeal to the Assizes. It is, of course, impossible for me to express any opinion as to this question of private rights; and the litigants must be ruled by their own advisers as to whether they can proceed further in the matter, or whether their landlords are bound to provide them with a pass. I believe that the agent is anxious to assist them in every way in his power. With regard to the alleged "undertaking" on the part of the landlords when the cases were before the Land Courts, the Land Commissioners inform me that there is no record of any arrangement of the kind.

  BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) — CASE OF WILLIAM HURSON.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  1600
  What is the cause of the delay in the National Education Board sanctioning the gratuity to William Hurson, Bock National School, Tyrone, who resigned on the 30th of May; and, is it the fact that if the man dies before the order is made the money will lapse to the Treasury?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that there was no avoidable delay in dealing with this case. The teacher's application was received in the Pension Office on the 10th of June, and thence transmitted to the Education Office. On the 19th of June the Commissioners, having certified the case, forwarded it to the Pension Department for gratuity—which will be paid by that Department on proof of existence and identity. There is a Treasury Regulation disallowing payment of retiring gratuities where teachers die before the award is made; but the money would not lapse to the Treasury, but to the Teachers' Pension Fund.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DONEGAL WORKHOUSE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the nature of the communications which he received from the Local Government Board with respect to the Donegal Workhouse, and what are the arrangements which he said would give satisfaction to all parties; is he aware that the majority of the Board persistently refuse to make any arrangement, or to appoint any Catholic official to the house, although the inmates are almost all Catholics; and, in view of the spiritual destitution and hardship which the Catholic paupers suffer, there being no Chaplain or other Catholic official, will he suspend the present Board and substitute Vice Guardians in their stead, and appoint, by sealed order, a Catholic assistant teacher according to the suggestion already made by him?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board inform me that they authorized their Inspector to suggest to the Board of Guardians the appointment of an assistant Catholic teacher; and the Inspector, who was present at the meeting of the Board when the subject was introduced, understood that the proposition was favourably regarded by the majority of the Protestant Guar

  1601
  dians present. The Local Government Board are not aware that this suggestion has been finally rejected by the Guardians. I have myself personally communicated with the Guardians, through their Chairman, expressing my concurrence in the proposed appointment and my earnest hope that they will bring this vexed question to a satisfactory issue. I have not since heard from them, and trust that my communication will have some weight when they again have the matter under consideration.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—UNIFORM SYSTEM OF BUOYAGE.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Royal Commission, dated 1st May 1883, recommending a uniform system of buoyage; if so, what measures he intends adopting for the purpose of giving effect to it; and, if he has decided whether the port hand buoys are to be of a uniform single or parti-colour?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: In July of last year I caused copies of the Report of the Conference appointed to consider the proposal for a uniform system of buoyage for the United Kingdom to be forwarded to the buoyage authorities in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands, and also to the Foreign and Colonial Offices, for distribution among Foreign and Colonial Maritime Governments. The Trinity House has intimated to me their intention to accept the recommendations of the Conference, and to introduce gradually such alterations as are necessary in their present system. From recently issued notices to mariners, it appears that the Commissioners of Irish Lights are gradually altering the buoyage of districts under their control in conformity with the scheme recommended. As regards port hand-buoys, the Conference recommended that they should be of a colour distinctive from single coloured starboard hand-buoys, leaving it open to the buoyage authority to adopt either a single or a parti-colour as may be preferred. I have no power to compel the adoption of the recommendations made.

  THE PUBLIC OFFICES—DESIGNS FOR THE NEW ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the First Commissioner of Works, Is it a fact, as is commonly reported among the architectural profession, that two of the selected designs for the new War Office and Admiralty are the production of persons employed by the War Office Department; if it is true that the selection of the premiated designs in the first competition was left to the clerks in the Office of Works to weed out, the judges themselves not having examined the others; and, whether these selected designs will be submitted to public inspection before any definite engagement is made?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: One of the nine selected designs for the War Office and Admiralty appears to be the work of two gentlemen, one of whom is an architectural draftsman employed at the War Office, and the other, his coadjutor, a well known architect. There is no foundation whatever for the statement that the selection of the nine designs, or the weeding out of the others, was left to the clerks of the Office of Works, and was not done by the judges themselves. The selected designs will be submitted to public inspection before any Vote is asked for the construction of the successful design.

  ORANGE MEETINGS (IRELAND)—MILITARY AND CONSTABULARY PENSIONERS.
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether military and constabulary pensioners in Ireland are permitted while in the receipt of their pensions from Government to participate in Orange meetings in Ireland; whether, on the late 12th of July celebrations at Derry and Newry, the Government took any steps to ascertain whether any of those in receipt of pensions participated in them; and, whether they intend to take any steps to ascertain?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Government have no power to control the political action of Constabulary pensioners. The Regulations which govern the conduct of constables while serving, necessarily cease to operate when they retire from the Force and resume their civil status.

  1603
  So far as this Question relates to military pensioners, it would more properly have been addressed to the Secretary of I State for War than to me; but I have the authority of my noble Friend to say that when not called out for duty, they have the entire status of civilians. Both classes of pensioners have, therefore, the same rights and responsibilities as other civilians with regard to political meetings, and the Government could not make any such inquiry as is suggested in the Question.
  MR. HEALY: As pensioners have full rights of political meetings, why are they not permitted to vote for Members of Parliament?
  [No reply.]

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND)—KILLARNEY WATERWORKS.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the complaints of the urban sanitary authority of Killarney of the delay in commencing the construction of waterworks for that town; whether this delay is caused by the unwillingness of the sub-sheriff to execute a warrant for possession of portion of the lands of Mr. Herbert of Muckross; and, whether any steps will be taken by the Local Government Board to insist upon this necessary step being taken immediately?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board have not received any complaint of the character mentioned in the Question; but they will make inquiry on the subject.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "POLYPHEMUS."
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, The total cost of H.M.S. Polyphemus to the 1st of July; and, whether he is in a position to state that she is throughout in a state of absolute efficiency for all the purposes for which she was originally designed and constructed?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The total amount expended on the polyphemus, for labour and materials, down to the 1st of July was £248,475. I am not in a position to make, in regard to her, the sweeping assertion which the hon. Member invites from me. The ship is at this moment in hand for the purpose of receiving new boilers in place of the
  1604
  experimental boilers with which she was originally fitted, and of having her torpedo tubes altered in order to carry out experiments in under-water torpedo discharge. I am not sure that I am aware of all the purposes which her designers may have had in view; but I believe that she has fully satisfied their main expectations; and when the present work upon her is finished—which is expected to be in September—she will be a most formidable and useful vessel.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — OBLIGATIONS OF SCHOOL BOARDS TO FURNISH SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, whether the Law Officers of the Crown have given their opinion as to the necessity laid upon School Boards to supply school accommodation; and, whether he can communicate the result of their opinion to the House?
  MR. MUNDELLA, in reply, said, he had not yet received the opinion. When he did receive it he would communicate with the hon. Member.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE NEW ASSIZE ARRANGEMENT.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to the inconvenience and dissatisfaction that the new Assize arrangement has caused at Newcastle-on-Tyne; and, if it is the intention of the Government to continue to send only one Judge to that city?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to a Charge to the Grand Jury by Mr. Justice Manisty, and a presentment made by the Grand Jury echoing that Charge. I know how important it is that every respect should be shown to Her Majesty's Judges, and I always sincerely endeavour to do so; but it is impossible to avoid saying how much, in my opinion, that Charge is to be regretted. The facts are that the Judges met on the 10th of June, and unanimously recommended certain changes in our Assize system. Mr. Justice Manisty was one of those Judges. Upon such recommendation, and in obedience to it, the Executive Government have acted. The scheme was approved of by the Judges, and now, upon his

  1605
  taking his seat at Newcastle, one of those who recommended it made a long and, I fear I must say, violent attack upon these very changes, and wound up by saying—
  "This is one of the results of persons controlling and regulating matters they have not been accustomed to."
  Undoubtedly everyone wished that the Government should take some steps to remove the block in our Courts, and we have done our best; but, of course, we cannot be very sanguine of success if Judges who have approved of a scheme denounce it, and then proceed to carry out a system they have prophesied will fail. My hon. Friend may be assured that the Lord Chancellor will listen to every representation which is made to him as to any inconvenience which may arise from one Judge sitting at Newcastle, and will endeavour to do all he can to study the public convenience.
  MR. HEALY: I wish to ask you, Sir, on a point of Order, whether it is in Order for Her Majesty's Attorney General to make an attack on Her Majesty's Judges? We have had from the hon. and learned Gentleman a criticism which neither you nor the Members of the House have condemned. I wish to know whether the license permitted to the hon. and learned Attorney General will also be permitted to those on this side of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: I heard nothing fall from the hon. and learned Attorney General which could induce me to think he has transgressed any Rule I have laid down from this Chair.

  IRELAND—THE 12TH OF JULY MEETING AT NEWRY.
  LORD ARTHUR HILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received the Report of the meeting held at Newry, on the 12th July, from the Resident Magistrates who were on duty in that town on the above-named date; and, whether he would have any objection to lay the Report upon the Table of the House?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Government have received a Report from the Resident Magistrates who were on duty in Newry on the 12th of July. The noble Lord asks me whether I have any
  1606
  objection to lay it on the Table. So far as anything in this particular Report is concerned, I certainly have no objection whatever. But the Reports of Resident Magistrates are made confidentially for the information of the Government, and it is the rule not to produce them. However, as on some recent occasions of special interest, and especially as in the case of the recent meeting at Newry of an opposite character, the Reports were laid on the Table, I will consent to waive the objection on this occasion also, on the distinct understanding that this is not to be relied on as a precedent. If the noble Lord moves for the Report, it will be granted.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the Report be laid on the Table before the Vote for the Resident Magistrates is taken?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will lay it on the Table at once.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—PORTABLE HOSPITALS.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Local Government Board have in their possession any model or plan of a temporary or portable hospital, such as they would recommend for use in the event of an outbrak of cholera; if he will state the time it would take to manufacture such an hospital; and, if, in the case of a violent outbreak of small pox in Athenry, about seven years ago, some delay was experienced in the erection of such a hospital?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board have a plan for a portable iron hospital which can be put up in a very short time, and which has been prepared by a London firm which supplies such buildings. The Local Government Board have also a plan for a temporary wooden hospital which can be erected quickly, though not so quickly as an iron hospital. I have impressed on the Board the desirability of circulating these plans without waiting until the local authorities ask for them. The time in which an an hospital can be obtained and put up depends upon whether or not they are kept in stock, and the Board are making inquiry on this point. The difficulty in Athenry, to which the hon. and gallant Members refers, was caused by the fear of infection on the part of tradesmen.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS) — LOWER THAMES VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has considered the Report of the Select Committee on the scheme for the sewage of the Lower Thames Valley; whether it is true, as seems to appear from the shorthand notes of the proceedings of the Committee, that they came to their decision, with regard to the division of the district, after hearing the evidence of two only out of eleven constituent authorities, and without hearing any evidence whatever on that point on the part of the other nine, or the Joint Board; whether that Report refuses the necessary power to the Joint Sewage Board to carry out a scheme for keeping the sewage out of the Thames, and, at the same time, refuses to protect the Joint Board and the ratepayers from penalties for its continuing to go in; whether the Joint Board was specially formed to deal with the difficulty of providing for the sewage of the district, after the separate authorities had failed, one after another, in providing remedies; whether, if the recommendations of the Committee are agreed to, it will be at the earliest in the year 1886 before any of the separate authorities will be in a position to commence works for intercepting the sewage passing into the Thames, and whether there is any assurance that even then their schemes will not be opposed in the future as they have been in the past; and, whether there are any steps which the House, or the Local Government Board, can take to give effect to the decision of Parliament 18 years ago, that the Thames should not be polluted by sewage passing into it in a crude condition above London?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have had under my consideration the Report of the Select Committee on the scheme for the sewerage of the Lower Thames Valley, which was issued yesterday. I believe that it is a fact that the Committee came to their decision with regard to the division of the existing district, after hearing the evidence of two only out of the 11 constituent authorities, and without hearing any evidence whatever on the part of the other nine constituent authorities on the Main Sewe-
  1608
  rage Board on the subject. I do not wish to pronounce an opinion adverse to the Committee with regard to the particular scheme which they have thought it right to reject; but there can be no doubt that the decision of the Committee has the effect of precluding the Main Sewerage Board from carrying out a scheme which was unanimously adopted by that Board with a view to keeping unpurified sewage out of the Thames; and it is also true that the Committee have rejected an unopposed Order, which would have protected the Main Sewerage Board and the ratepayers from the penalties to which that Board will be liable under the Thames Conservancy Act, after September next, for the discharge of unpurified sewage into the Thames. I have some doubt whether the decision of the Committee on the latter point is a legal decision, and it will be a matter for consideration by the proper officials of the House whether the Committee had power to throw out the unopposed Order. The Main Sewerage Board was constituted by a Provisional Order, which was isued by the Board after local conferences and inquiries, and was subsequently confirmed by Parliament, after full consideration by a Select Committee. The grounds on which the Main Sewerage Board was constituted were the great difficulties which attended each separate Sanitary Authority making separate provision for the disposal of the sewage of their district, and the expectation that the sewage of the united areas could be more easily, more satisfactorily, and more economically dealt with by one authority than by the authorities acting separately. It is a fact that authorities of districts included in the joint district had, prior to the constitution of that district, failed, one after the other, in their efforts to provide proper schemes for the disposal of the sewage. As regards the recommendation of the Committee, that the district should be divided; that Heston and Isleworth should form one district; that Richmond and the Richmond Union Sanitary District should form another; that the southern portion should be formed into one or more groups, if the Main Sewerage Board were dissolved and new groups of areas were made, the earliest possible date at which any of the authorities could be in a position to commence

  1609
  works, unless suitable land for the works could be purchased by agreement, would be the year 1886. Not only have the Board no assurance that the schemes promoted by the separate authorities will not be opposed, but, according to the past experience of the Board, it would be hopeless to expect that the separate schemes would not meet with strong opposition. For the present, the decision of the Committee would appear to make it impracticable to prevent the pollution of the Thames by sewage passing into it in a crude condition.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE: With regard to throwing out the unopposed Order, I wish to say that the Committee consulted the Authorities of the House, who informed them that the Committee had that power.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I express no opinion of my own upon the point. I only speak upon information which I received from certain Authorities who are connected with the Private Bill Legislation of the House.

  EGYPT—THE CONFERENCE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the Conference on the affairs of Egypt is to hold its next meeting?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I find that Lord Granville has received authority from the members of the Conference to summon them together; and he has good hopes of being able to summon them for Tuesday next.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE—LOWER DIVISION CLERKS.
  MR. ION HAMILTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any Treasury Minute has been circulated among the Heads of Departments, inviting them to co-operate in arranging an uniform scale of leave for the clerks of the Lower Division?
  MR. COURTNEY: A Treasury Minute on this subject will be laid on the Table of the House and circulated to the Public Departments in a few days.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—TEACHERS IN CONVENT NATIONAL SCHOOLS—THE GRANT.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now state what is his scheme
  1610
  of payment to Convent Schools; and, if not, on what day does he expect to make a statement on the subject?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have already stated that no arrangement could be made which would be provided for by the Estimates before the House for the current financial year. The matter will be considered further before the Estimates for next year are framed.
  MR. BIGGARasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not now state what would be done next year in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I would be very glad to state the result of our consideration, so far as the convent schools are concerned. We have come to some decision; but we had an idea that it might possibly involve some larger questions, which it would be impossible to consider now.
  MR. SEXTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow us to expect that he would make some declaration on the subject on the Vote for Irish National Education?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir; I do not think so.

  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—THE RAJAH OF TENOM—CREW OF THE "NISERO."
  MR. STOREYsaid, that the Question of which he had given Notice as it appeared on the Paper contained no fewer than five grammatical inaccuracies, which made it almost unintelligible; and he should, therefore, prefer to ask only the first and last of the interrogatories, which were printed as follows:—To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Governor Weld reported on February 9th that an English guarantee of open ports and free traffic was undoubtedly contemplated by our Treaty with the Netherlands of 1871, and would immediately effect the relief of the detained crew, and Captain Roura was empowered, on November 20th, 1883, by the Netherlands-India Authorities to offer a large sum of money, and to promise that we (the Dutch) shall open his ports as soon as he has delivered the captain and crew; whether the negotiations fell through because the Rajah demanded a British guarantee as to open ports; whether Mr. Maxwell was empowered by the Netherlands-India Authorities to offer similar terms on February 18th, and whether he reported on

  1611
  March 1st that the Rajah refused them except under an English guarantee, and on March 21st—
  "I have now no hope that the crew of the Nisero will be peacefully surrendered to the Dutch or to the English unless free trade on the West Coast of Acheen is re-established as fully as it existed before the war;"
  and, whether the present proposals of the Government include an English guarantee to the Rajah of free trade and open ports, as contemplated by the Treaty of 1871; and, if not, wherein they differ from the old proposals, which all our officials on the spot reported as sure to be inoperative?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have no difficulty in following the Questions as they appear on the Paper, notwithstanding the hon. Member's difficulty in doing so; nor do I think hon. Members will have any. I have no objection to make to the quotations from the Blue Books made by the hon. Member in the first two paragraphs of his Question. But I may remind him that the claim of the Dutch Government is that the commercial rights stipulated for under the Treaties of 1824 and 1871 are temporarily suspended by the blockade established owing to the hostilities now existing. The first three Articles of the Treaty of 1824, which was continued by that of 1871, stipulate for the free communication of the Natives in the Eastern Archipelago with the ports of the two Governments respectively. There is no intention of abandoning the Treaties of 1824 and 1871. The present proposals differ from the previous proposals, inasmuch as it is intended, in the event of the refusal by the Rajah to accept the proposed terms and release the crew, that the two Governments shall act jointly, and resort to force. In the event of his accepting the terms, as I stated yesterday, the Netherlands Government have agreed that his ports shall be re-opened and remain open so long as he does not rebel against their authority, and thus compel them to resort again to the blockade of his ports. Her Majesty's Government decline to doubt the good faith of the Government of the Netherlands in carrying out that agreement, or to demand any guarantee. I wish to correct the report of an answer I gave yesterday. I did not say that immediately on the receipt of the reply of the Dutch Government
  1612
  action had been taken on the spot by the local authorities; but that action had been at once taken at the Foreign Office with a view to action by the local authorities.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Will these Papers be presented?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I intended to lay them on the Table today; but there is a further despatch from the Secretary of State in reply to the last communication, and therefore I wish to produce them on Monday.

  PRIVILEGE—ACCESS TO THIS HOUSE—THE REFORM DEMONSTRATION.
  MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR): I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the absence of the Home Secretary, Whether, as announced in the newspapers, the traffic is to be stopped between Black-friars Bridge and Hyde Park on Monday next, and what arrangements have been made for hon. Members to have access to this House?
  MR. HIBBERT: I am sorry I am not in a position to reply to the Question. The matter has not been in my hands; but in a few minutes my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be present, and he will answer the Question.
  MR. GLADSTONE (rising at a later stage): As my right hon. and learned Friend has not arrived, I may say with reference to the Question of the Lord Mayor, without entering into details, that it is within my knowledge that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been actively engaged, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner of Police, to consider what are the best arrangements to make for the public convenience, and in particular has given directions which he thought best to secure the comfort and easy access of Members to this House. [An hon. MEMBER: What arrangements?]

  PUBLIC HEALTH—IMPORTATION OF RAGS FROM MARSEILLES.
  MR. G. W. ELLIOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he was aware it was stated that Yorkshire was within measurable distance of, if not in actual contact with, Asiatic cholera; whether a vessel had not arrived at Hull with a cargo of rags,

  1613
  from Marseilles, on the way to Dews-bury; and, whether, in view of the great danger of Asiatic cholera invading this country, the Government would take immediate steps in regard to it?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I think it might have been better if the hon. Member had taken the trouble to ascertain the facts with regard to his Question before he put it. It so happens that the allegations made in the Question are the exact opposite of the facts. The facts are these. A ship, laden with rags from Marseilles, which are stated—there is no certain evidence in our possession—to have been packed before the outbreak of cholera, was stated to be on its way to Hull. The moment the Sanitary Authorities at Hull informed us of these facts, and stated that they desired an order that the rags should be excluded from Hull, an Order was made to exclude them, and they were excluded under similar powers to those put in force last year with regards to rags from Egypt.
  MR. GIBSON: Where did they go to?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Then we were told that there was a prospect of their being landed at Goole; and a similar order was made with regard to Goole. No attempt has been made to land the rags. The person to whom the rags were consigned has been in communication with the Sanitary Authorities at Hull and Goole to see whether he could satisfy them, and, if not, he intends to take them back to France.
  MR. G. W. ELLIOT: May I ask if these rags have not been landed in England?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: So far as I understand, they have not be landed at the two ports I speak of. I had a letter yesterday from the owners, stating that if they could not make any arrangements with the Sanitary Authorities of the ports, they would send these rags back to Marseilles.
  LORD EDMOND EITZMAURICE: While the House is on this matter of quarantine, I am anxious to read a telegram which has been received, and which bears upon a great number of inquiries I have received from hon. Members interested in commerce. Mr. Macpherson, Vice Consul at Madrid, telegraphs—
  "Vessels arriving from British ports must serve three days' observation in port of arrival,
  1614
  instead of performing quarantine at lazaretto."
  I think that information will be satisfactory to many hon. Members.

  EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—THE AEMY OF OCCUPATION.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can inform the House for what purpose British troops are now stationed at Assouan and Keneh, and British officers at Wady Halfa and Korosko; and, whether it is true that a British officer has been sent to Dongola?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am anxious to give the hon. Member all the information in my power if I knew exactly what he wished for. I stated on the 24th of last month, in reply to a Question from the hon. Member, that the reason given by Sir Frederick Stephenson for sending a battalion to Assouan was that the tribes in front were becoming troublesome, and that it was desirable to support the Egyptian troops, and to give confidence to the Natives. I do not know that I can add anything to that, unless I know the particular point the hon. Member desired to bring forward. The British officers at Wady Halfa and Korosko were, of course, stationed with the Egyptian troops, and their presence on the Egyptian Frontier does not appear to me to require elaborate explanation. It is the fact that a British officer and an Egyptian officer had been sent to Dongola for the purpose of directing negotiations, if possible, with the tribes in the neighbourhood.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the proportion of the Arab population between Wady Halfa and Assouan was not as large as the Arab population between Berber and Khartoum; and whether the force of British officers and troops had been put there with the object of "smashing up the Mahdi?"
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No, Sir; they have been placed there with the object of restoring confidence on the frontier of Egypt.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I thought the Arab tribes were becoming troublesome. I would ask the noble Marquess whether the Arab tribes between Wady Halfa and Assouan have got the same right to become trouble-

  1615
  some as those at Berber and Khartoum?
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the noble Marquess whether it would not be very desirable, considering the position of Assouan, not to leave one battalion only of British troops there, but to reinforce them with more troops?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had stated on the previous day that another battalion was being sent to Egypt. Of course, the disposition of the troops in Egypt was a matter entirely resting with the Military Authorities there.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention had been called to a letter which appeared in that day's papers from Dr. Schweinfurth as to the dangerous position of General Gordon; and whether, in view of the grave allegations in that letter, Her Majesty's Government still considers it inexpedient to take immediate active steps for the relief of General Gordon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I was just about to give to the House some information upon the matter alluded to by the hon. Member with regard to General Gordon. It does not directly bear on Dr. Schweinforth's telegram; but this information has been received from Mr. Egerton, who telegraphed on the 17th of July to Her Majesty's Government as follows:—
  "A telegram from Major Chermside to-day says that a Takruri and a Galla, calling themselves pilgrims, state that they left Khartoum June 12. The place was safe, provisions plentiful, and Arabs few. They left Berber on the 1st of July, which was in the hands of rebels. Hussein Pasha was in his own house, in possession of his property. There were a good many Arabs on road near Berber. … Sheiks, delegates, and spies from Digna's camp informed Chermside that Ragha, at Berber, was asking artillery assistance from Digna, as General Gordon goes out in steamer and fires at rebels in Berber. … Chermside's paid agents told him on 10th that Gordon was harassing rebels from Khartoum with seven guns on steamer."
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I may add to what my noble Friend has said, that I have made inquiries with respect to the statement from Dr. Schweinfurth, sent to The Times, with the object of ascertaining what information Dr. Schweinfurth had received.
  1616
  It appears, however, that the actual whereabouts of Dr. Schweinfurth is not known, and it has not been possible to communicate with him; but, as soon as information has been obtained, it will be communicated.

  SAVINGS BANKS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Mr. COLERIDGE KENNARDIn reply to Mr. COLERIDGE KENNARD,
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, it was well known that one of the main objects of this Bill was to increase the amount that might be deposited in the course of a year in the Post Office Savings Bank, and that was strongly opposed by a great number of hon. Members. In view of this opposition, that part of the Bill would be dropped; but the other parts of the Bill dealing with the machinery of the Savings Bank would be proceeded with.
  MR. STOREY: I beg to give Notice that I shall oppose the Bill in every way, seeing that the only valuable clause has been withdrawn.
  MR. COLERIDGE KENNARD: Is it intended that the Bill should be extended to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man?
  MR. COURTNEY: I think it will as regards those parts of it which are of no value.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—KING JOHN OF ABYSSINIA.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which he had not been able to give Notice—namely, Whether King John of Abyssinia had taken up arms as an ally of the British Government; and, if so, what pledges had been required against the adoption of cruel methods of warfare as practiced by uncivilized people, especially in regard to the infliction of torture?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have answered an exactly similar Question put by another hon. Member. I said the Papers will shortly be laid on the Table.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I will ask the noble Lord on Monday what are the terms of the engagement entered into between Admiral Hewett and King John of Abyssinia; and what is the

  1617
  consideration agreed upon for the military assistance of the King?
  LORD EDMOND EITZMAURICE: The Papers will be laid on the Table on Tuesday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  EAST INDIAN MEDICAL SERVICE.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. GIBSON, in rising to call attention to the grievances of the East Indian Medical Service, and to move—
    "That the condition of the East Indian Medical Service calls for the early attention of Her Majesty's Government, and this House trusts that steps will soon be taken to lessen the block in promotion and the disappointment at the methods of employment and pay which exist in its ranks,"
    said, that the subject which he desired very strongly to bring before the notice of the House was one of deep interest, not only to those directly concerned, but was likewise regarded with great sympathy by many other classes in the United Kingdom. The Questions which, from time to time, during the last two or three Sessions, had been asked of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross), indicated that that interest had found a very substantial outlet in that House. His (Mr. Gibson's) Motion was framed in no carping or acrimonious spirit, and he should endeavour to present, as temperately and concisely as he could, the complaints of the persons concerned. Many hon. Members sitting in different parts of the House held the same views as he did on this question, and he was sure it was the anxious desire of the Under Secretary of State for India to listen fairly and carefully to the different statements which would be made; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would indicate, in his speech, that he would communicate what was said in the debate both to the Secretary of State and to the Viceroy, and that he would endeavour, as far as was consistent with his duty, to have the matter put in train for further and fuller consideration. The Indian Medical Ser-
    1618
    vice was an important one, with a distinguished and interesting history; and it could not be regarded as satisfactory that any great Public Service, such as it undoubtedly was, should find itself agitated and disturbed by a keen feeling that it had not been justly dealt with. The Service could, unquestionably, stand any amount of criticism and examination. It had been long before the public, and it had in its ranks now, and had had in the past, many most eminent and distinguished men. By its conduct in times of cholera, pestilence, and war, and upon every occasion when it had been put to the test, it had merited the gratitude and recognition of all who took an interest in the good administration of such a Service. The grievances of the Indian Medical Service must be looked at from two points of view, in one sense independent, but in another and broader sense closely connected—first, in connection with the position and grievances of the senior officers; and, secondly, in connection with the grievances and disappointments which were experienced by the junior members of the Service. As regarded most of the former, the Act of Parliament which transferred them to the Crown when their country took over the Government of India was, he contended, equivalent to a Charter. The senior officers were, of course, not a very large class; and their position could be dealt with easily by a little tact, good sense, and discretion, in a way that would be a relief, not only to them, but also to their juniors, and, what was very rare in such cases, be at the same time for the benefit of the Treasury. The seniors complained that, by the abolition of administrative appointments, which existed and were proportionate to the strength of the Service when they entered it, their position had been damnified, and that they had been injured by the violation of rights and privileges which were guaranteed to the Service at the time they entered it under the Government of India Act. From the 56th section of that Act, to which he would call the attention of hon. Members, it was evident that it conferred upon all medical officers previously serving in India a right not to have their position injuriously affected by or after the transfer of the Indian Government to the Crown, but a claim not only to fair play, but to generous consideration.

    1619
    In 1857 there were 432 officers in the Bengal Medical Service, and 15 administrative medical appointments; and, at the present time, those numbers had fallen to 342 and 10; in other words, the strength of the whole Service had decreased 20 per cent, and the number of administrative appointments had been diminished by 33 per cent. He made no charges against the Government; but he wished simply to state facts, and indicate that, as public servants, the rights of these officers should not be altered to their detriment, without giving them an opportunity of legitimate retirement on reasonable and fair terms. Nothing whatever had taken place to mitigate the disastrous effects of the change he had described; and unless the Government did something in that direction, these senior officers must continue in the discharge of subordinate duties until they were compelled by age to retire, and then on very inadequate pensions. The Indian Medical Service was, essentially, under the Company, a seniority Service, tempered, of course, by the right of passing by any officer who might be disqualified by incapacity or misconduct. He was informed that, since 1880, the Government had several times set aside that practice, and some of the appointments that had been made had had a serious effect to the detriment of senior officers of proved capacity and tried efficiency who had been previously in the service of the Company. Another rule of the Service was, that an officer who declined promotion would be permanently passed over. Promotion carried with it not only rank, but increased pay, and, when an officer retired, the right of an extra pension of £250 or £350 per annum. If, therefore, senior officers were deprived of their chances of high promotion, and at the same time not offered reasonable terms of fair retirement, their position was a serious one. There would really be a great waste of strength and power, as they would have officers of great experience drawing comparatively high salaries discharging duties which should fall to the lot of junior officers. That was so in this case, for many of these officers, after years of service which had entitled them to high administrative positions, were still discharging duties which surgeons of five or six years' service under the Crown would be perfectly competent to discharge; and
    1620
    the junior surgeons were relegated to uncertain and anomalous positions with disappointing status and inadequate pay. The consequence was, there was a feeling of intense discontent in the junior branch of the Medical Service, which the Government ought not to disregard. At one time the Service had been exceedingly popular; but the reason it was so was because distinct inducements were held out to the Medical Schools of the United Kingdom, in the most official and formal way, by the Government of the Crown to send their young men to India. A Government Circular was issued which gave candidates official information with reference to the competitions, and that Circular gave a list of all the higher offices of the Indian Medical Service as baits of what these young men might expect to rise to in time. They naturally read the Circular in the way in which any ordinary man of intelligence would read it, and it could not be wondered that acute disappointment was felt, when they found that the words of the Circular were given an entirely different construction to once they had entered the Service. Another Circular, which he had in his hand, contained these words—
    "A medical officer will, however employed, be restricted to the rate of pay laid down in paragraph 12 until he shall have passed the examination in Hindustani known as the Lower Standard."
    Did not that clearly convey that a medical officer who had passed the examination in Hindustani would not be restricted to the pay laid down in paragraph 12, and that he was to receive the higher rate of pay? [Mr. J. K. CROSS dissented.] The hon. Gentleman shook his head. Under Secretaries of State always did shake their heads—shaking their heads was more or less a part of their business. But his construction of that Circular was confirmed by the Circular which had been presented to that House a few months ago. The meaning of the paragraph was, that unemployed pay in the Indian Medical Service was to be temporary and exceptional, and that employed pay was to be the rule. But the actual fact was, that it appeared by the Bengal Army List of January, 1883, that out of the 42 gentlemen who had passed the Lower Standard in the last six examinations in Hindustani, not one had obtained permanent regimental employment, while

    1621
    only 25 were receiving employed pay. Was not that keeping the promise to the ear, and breaking it to the hope? It was a very serious state of facts; and, obviously, if a Service was administered in this way, it must sooner or later break down. He might refer to the case of a young gentleman who had attained the highest possible University honours, who had entered the Indian Medical Service in the hope of obtaining immediate high pay, but who had now been in India for two years, and had had professional duties of the highest importance to discharge, and yet who was merely receiving unemployed pay, which was far below that received by the youngest subaltern in the Service. Would it be believed that during Sir Frederick Roberts's Campaign, numbers of men in the Indian Medical Service, who had sacrificed their lives in the field, or in the hospitals, and who had been wounded, were technically regarded, and had been actually paid as unemployed men! Such a system was farcical. It was painful to think that there was only too much ground for the allegation, that the members of the Indian Medical Service were worse paid than any European commissioned officers in the Indian Army. It was not satisfactory to find that a veterinary surgeon with less than five years' Government service, was paid a fixed salary of not less than 377 rupees a-month; while the Indian medical officer of the same service, a man of high ability and great qualifications, might, in a number of cases, be paid only 286 rupees a-month. It was said that there was a new Memorandum, a very long and tiresome document, stating the conditions of service without ambiguity, which the India Office would not call a new Memorandum, because they disliked calling anything by its real name. Well, this new Memorandum might be a good warning for the future, but it could not undo the past. What was the remedy for all these serious difficulties? It was not for him to indicate a remedy, except with great humility and considerable hesitation. He pointed out, what no one could gainsay—namely, that there was at present enormous dissatisfaction and discontent, together with a sense of injury, in the Indian Medical Service, and it behoved them all to attempt by some means to get rid of it. It was not, as
    1622
    he had said, for him to suggest a remedy; but he was told that some plan of retiring the old officers, who belonged to a former regimé, would contribute very largely to the solution of the difficulty, and that a plan, fair and just to seniors, juniors, and the Treasury, could with case be sketched. He held such a plan in his hand, which worked out figures plainly, showing that after payment of adequate pensions to senior surgeons there would be a great annual public saving. It might also be advantageously considered whether the system of unemployed pay could not be put on something like a rational basis. Perhaps it might be said—"If these gentlemen are dissatisfied, there are lots of men ready to come in." That, however, was no answer at all. It could be said with as much force of any other branch of the Public Service. If we got the services of first-rate men from the best Medical Schools, by virtue of public representations and statements, we were bound, in the interest of the Public Service, to maintain our honour and to keep our word. He hoped he had not said anything of an intemperate or exaggerated character. That was not in the smallest degree a Party question. It was a question which he might fairly ask hon. Gentlemen to judge from a fair and a reasonable standpoint. He sincerely hoped, and, indeed, he had confidence, that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India would weigh very carefully everything which would be said in the course of this discussion, and that he would, as far as he could, see that all these topics were put into a train for further inquiry, if, indeed, he did not know all about them at present, and that he would take care that he, the Secretary of State for India, and the Viceroy, should, as soon as they could, apply a remedy which would improve this important branch of the Public Service. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: My right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) has so clearly stated the case for the medical officers of the Indian Army that very few words from me will suffice in the present debate. I admit, at once, that it requires a very strong case indeed to justify Parliamentary interference between any Public Service and the

    1623
    Executive Government. When men have entered a Service, with a full knowledge of the conditions of that Service, any subsequent discontent which may arise is, in my opinion, a matter between them and the Executive; while the intervention of Parliament is generally inexpedient, and dangerous to public interests. But this is not a case of that kind. The Medical Service in India has, in times past, been of such a high character, that it has secured the flower of young medical men from all the great Medical Schools in each part of the United Kingdom, and the result has abuntantly justified the liberal terms which secured this selection. The Indian Medical Service can boast of names which are familiar in all lands for the advance which has been made in science, in public health, in medicine, and in surgery. Names such as Falconer, M'Clelland, Martin, Royle, Wallich, Murchison, Mouat. Fayrer, Cunningham, and, if I might be allowed to add, relatives of my own name, are still held in honour in the country which they served. The traditions of that Service entice into it the pick of the young medical men. What, then, has arisen to render those who have recently joined so profoundly discontented? The conditions of their Service may not be so favourable as they once were; but that circumstance would form no reason for Parliamentary interference, if they entered it with a full knowledge of the changed conditions. But that is not the case. My right hon. and learned Friend has clearly shown that, in any fair interpretation of these conditions, the candidates have been deceived. When a man is told that he goes out with less than £28 a-month till he passes a lower examination in Hindustani and until he is professionally employed, he has no grievance; but when he is further told that, when he has passed that examination and is professionally employed, he will receive £40 a-month, no casuistry can persuade him that the professional employment is so extremely limited in character that he cannot expect to receive it for five or six years, when, as a fact, he is doing professional work of an arduous character all that time. Let me give two instances of this. One medical officer, whom I know, goes out and passes his language examination. He receives 286 rupees a-month. He is sent
    1624
    to Egypt with the Indian Contingent, but is informed that he is unemployed, and still remains at the same rate. He is sent again to Egypt last year, during cholera; but he is still "officially unemployed," and receives the pay of an unemployed surgeon. I give another case. Another of my correspondents has been five years in the Service. He is sent to a British station hospital, to acquire knowledge which he got at Netley, and is paid 286 rupees a-month. He is then sent on an escort of British troops; but that is not official employment, so his pay remains the same. He is then attached as a supernumerary to a Native regiment, with no increase of pay. He then is put in charge of a wing of another regiment; but the pay continues at 286 rupees a-month. Then he is put in charge of another regiment, and is raised to 304 rupees, or, after five years' active service, he gets 18 rupees more, all on the fiction that during that time he was unemployed. Now, no official fiction in regard to the word "employment" can satisfy a doctor who was given to understand that full employment was to carry 400 rupees a-month, that he is not unjustly treated when he is really working hard in his profession all that time. The Indian medical officer finds that the general medical officer of the British Army is better treated than he is. The Indian officer has entered by higher qualifications; and yet he finds the medical officers of the British Service, sent for a short period to India, receiving higher pay than himself. The Indian officer is sent to serve in station hospitals, where his less qualified brother in medicine is his superior. As Professor MacLean, of Netley, puts it very clearly—
    "To place Indian medical officers in a position subordinate to those of the British Service is, to put it shortly and in all its naked absurdity, simply to put inferiors over their superiors."
    I contend that no such profound discontent would have arisen had the terms of their appointment not misled the medical officers as to their future position. The Service may be overstocked, but that is the fault of the Government. The senior medical officers complain also that their promotion is much slower than before, and, of course, this ultimately will affect the juniors. How do we meet such cases at homo? I had the honour to be President of a Commission for re-

    1625
    organizing the Civil Service. We found many of the offices overstocked with high-paid clerks who stopped promotion. We recommended their reduction on liberal pensions; and that step, though at first a costly process, soon proved a great economy to the Public Service. But I will not go further into the detailed grievances which have been so well explained by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University. I would, however, entreat my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India to use his best efforts to lessen the profound discontent which prevails throughout both the junior and senior divisions of the Medical Service. The efficiency of that Service has vastly aided the Government of India. The mortality among our troops was at one time terrific. The improvements in public health, introduced by a skilled Medical Service, have produced vast economies in our Indian Government. You cannot keep up that efficiency without tempting the best men to enter the Service. I hope this debate will show the Under Secretary of State that he must take prompt steps to allay the discontent in India. It is in this hope, and with this conviction, that I would urge my right hon. and learned Friend not to divide. A negative result, even with the large minority which we should have, would be mistaken in India; though I think the debate will prove the strong desire of this House that the anomalies and obstacles which are now so patent in the Indian Medical Service should be removed by the Indian Government. My hon. Friend (Mr. J. K. Cross) must not rely on the fact that there are numerous candidates for each vacancy. There will always be a crowd of young men starting into life, to whom £28 a-month will be a temptation. But if he desires to sustain the character of the Indian Medical Service, he must give such terms as will secure the highest class of candidates. While the present discontent prevails, he cannot expect that he can obtain them, and the lowering of the standard would be a disaster to the Indian Empire.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the condition of the East Indian Medical Service calls for the early attention of Her Majesty's
    1626
    Government, and this House trusts that steps will soon be taken to lessen the block in promotion and the disappointment at the methods of employment and pay which exist in its ranks,"—(Mr. Gibson,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEsaid, he was able, from his own experience in the Indian Service, to give strong testimony to the justice of the cause which had been so ably advocated by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) and by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Lyon Playfair). At the time when he was in India, the administrative appointments in the upper branches of the Service were almost invariably given by seniority; and, unless a man had proved himself incompetent, he was rarely passed over. Now, when men got up to a certain height, there they stopped. There was no possibility of more than a limited number getting any further; and the number of administrative appointments, previously very small, had been considerably reduced. He knew the case of a man who had retired disappointed and almost broken-hearted. From his own experience he knew that, in former times, medical officers were not long in the Indian Service before they received employed pay—in his own case the period was only six months; but now onerous and important duties were discharged, and yet, by an extraordinary fiction, the men who discharged them were said to be unemployed. The efficiency of the Service was proved by the fact that, practically, all the Indian troops who went to Egypt were taken back, except those who were killed or wounded in battle. Formerly, many important and valuable appointments were open to members of the Service, and these were an inducement to medical men to enter it. Since then the pay had been reduced, although the expenses of living had increased; and so, from every point of view, the conditions of the Service were worse than they had been. When it was suggested that the appointments were put up to open competition, he urged that candidates should know absolutely the condition of affairs, and be made aware of the number of officers at present unemployed. While acquit

    1627
    ting the India Office of anything like the imputation of taking these young men into the Service under false pretences, he could not disguise that this feeling might find expression among the medical officers themselves; and we certainly should not get picked men as we used to do. He had received numerous letters, and had had several personal interviews with members of the Indian Medical Service, and he believed that there was, undoubtedly, a very keen feeling of disappointment and dissatisfaction among all ranks, seniors and juniors alike, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross) would be able to restore to the Service some of its ancient prestige and satisfaction.
    MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, the members of the Indian Medical Service were to be congratulated on the ability and moderation with which their case had been stated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) had spoken of the great reduction in the number of administrative appointments; but he surely did not mean to say that these appointments were ever, under any circumstances, guaranteed to the Service as a whole, in the numbers at which they were at the time of the transfer of the Indian Company to the Crown? The right hon. and learned Gentleman also spoke of reductions of from 10 to 15 per cent as a grievance. Surely, it could not be a grievance if, from the changes in the Service from one year to another, it was found necessary to reduce the administrative appointments. That being so, he could not see that the Medical Service had any right to object; and, certainly, the diminution could not be a grievance to those who had entered the Service since the appointments were abolished. He had already explained, in answer to Questions, that it was not at all a new thing that there were unemployed officers of the Indian Medical Service. He had stated that it was necessary to retain a Reserve of surgeons in excess of the bare number required to fill all the necessary posts in time of peace. Spare men were wanted—a small number, in case of unforeseen contingencies, and a larger number, to do the work of those surgeons who were absent on furlough. The nature of the Reserve was explained in the Indian Medical Blue Book of 1881. It was there stated that
    1628
    the ideal Medical Establishment consisted of 542 appointments, and a Reserve—calculated at 25 percent—of 131, making a total of 673. Of the Reserve, about 100 would be, it was assumed, holding officiating appointments. The balance would consist of the juniors of the Department, who were not supposed to rise above unemployed pay for the first two years of their service. It was impossible to recruit the Department in such a manner that the Reserve should never be bigger than was necessary at the moment. Deaths and retirements necessarily varied from year to year, and so did the number of officers who went on furlough. Besides these, which were causes over which it was impossible to have control, the Department was now over-manned, owing to the large drafts which had to be made into it during the Afghan War. At the last seven half-yearly examinations, 46 appointments had been given. In the year 1880 alone, 49 appointments were made. The result of that reduction of the yearly appointments was now beginning to tell. The actual number at present drawing unemployed pay was hardly greater than it was 10 years ago—namely, 63, as against 57. During the last three years, only 36 appointments had been made; while the retirements in 1882 and 1833 were 56, and probably would be 76 by the end of the year. But, before proceeding further, he would call the attention of the House to the actual number of officers for whom relief was claimed; and in connection with the point, he must say that it was entirely a mistaken notion to suppose that many of the officers appointed some years ago were still only drawing unemployed pay. Of the whole Medical Service of India, 126 had been appointed within the last five years, of whom only 52 remained on unemployed pay on the 1st of March last; and of that number, six had since then been promoted from the category of unemployed officers, and 20 were under two years' service, which was the length of time laid down in the Blue Book, C. 2,921, of 1881, before which an officer could not expect to rise above unemployed pay. The agitation, therefore, appeared to be, so far as India was concerned, on behalf of 26 gentlemen only, out of the whole Medical Service of upwards of 600, who would receive appointments, however, in the course of a year or so if retirements

    1629
    continued at the average of the last 10 years, which was 31, or even at the average of the last five years, which was 29. That candidates were not deterred from joining the Department by the length of time for which they must continue in the "unemployed pay" stage was proved by the fact that, at the last examination, when 25 candidates presented themselves to compete for five appointments, all came up to the qualifying standard. A charge of bad faith had been brought against the India Office for not fulfilling the conditions of the Memorandum which was issued to candidates for the Service, and which had been laid upon the Table of the House. His right hon. and learned Friend had made use of some rather strong language in connection with that Memorandum; and therefore he (Mr. J. K. Cross) might be permitted to say that he had had the various editions of that Memorandum, which had been published since 1866, printed in such a form as to show clearly any alteration which had been made in the terms of the Memorandum. The Paragraphs on which the charge of bad faith was founded, were at Pages 10 and 17 of the Memorandum, under the head "Pay and Allowances." Hon. Members would see that the same form had been adopted since 1866 till September last year, when, in consequence of the representations made to him in the form of Questions in that House, the advertisement was amplified. He would first discuss the terms of the Memorandum as it was issued before September, 1883, and he must observe that, although the Memorandum had been issued substantially in the same form since 1866, no complaint that it was misleading or inaccurate was made till last year. Here was a document so faulty, that a demand for redress was based on it; and yet, for 17 years, it had been accepted without remark. Paragraph 14 of the chapter on "Pay and Allowances," as it was issued before September, 1883, ran as follows:—
    "Officers who may hereafter be appointed to the India Medical Service will receive pay in India according to the following scale:—The pay of a surgeon of six years' service is 329 rupees monthly; five years' service, 304 rupees monthly; and less than five years' service, 286 rupees monthly."
    Paragraph 15 explained at what date payment of a surgeon's salary was to begin. Paragraph 16 was as follows:—
    1630
    "The salaries of the principal administrative and military appointments are fixed at the following consolidated sums:—The pay of a surgeon above five years' full-pay service in charge of a Native regiment is 600 rupees monthly, with horse allowance in the Cavalry; under five years, 450 rupees monthly, with horse allowance in the Cavalry."
    Paragraph 14 laid down the scale at which officers were to be paid on first appointment — namely, at 286 rupees monthly; and Paragraph 16 stated the salaries of the principal appointments, the lowest of which, the charge of a Native regiment, was paid for a surgeon under five years' service at 450 rupees monthly. Paragraph 19, the crucial, the vital paragraph, on which the grievances of which so much had been heard were founded, was as follows:—
    "A medical officer will, however employed, be restricted to the rate of pay laid down in paragraph 14 until he shall have passed the examination in Hindustani, known as the 'Lower Standard.'"
    Now, what did these words mean? Obviously, that an officer who had obtained one of the principal appointments mentioned in Paragraph 16, would not draw an increase of pay, unless he had passed the examination in languages. The surgeons, on the other hand, contended that the obvious meaning of these words was that, as soon as anyone had passed the examination in languages, he was guaranteed promotion to the rates of pay reserved in Paragraph 16 to the principal appointments in the Department. The words "however employed" were construed into a pledge that employment should be given of that particular kind which was specified in Paragraph 16 as alone carrying the higher rates of pay. He defied any rational person to say that he believed that the natural meaning of Paragraph 19 was that, as soon as a surgeon had passed the examination in languages, he was to be promoted to one of the principal appointments mentioned in Paragraph 16. A pamphlet which had been issued by some of the Medical Profession contained statements of the most misleading character. The pamphleteer, in quoting the chapter of "Pay and Allowances," very sensibly omitted Paragraph 14, and began with Paragraph 16. He (Mr. J. K. Cross) would not dwell any longer on that subject, except to say that, in the edition of the Memorandum issued last September, the wording of the

    1631
    Paragraph had been changed. He confessed that the alteration was rather a work of supererogation. The other change introduced into the Memorandum of September was, to explain that there were intermediate rates of pay between those laid down in Paragraphs 14 and 16. When a surgeon in charge of a regiment went on leave, his vacancy was filled by an officer who was said to officiate for him. The officiating officer did not draw the full pay of the officer whose place he filled, but only a certain proportion of it. The reason why the same rate was not given to both officers was an economical one, as without some such rule as this the financial burden of furloughs would be too great. The same rules as to officiating pay obtained in the Civil Service, and it was accepted throughout all the branches of the Indian Service. Indeed, without it, the system of furlough which prevailed in India could not be maintained except at a most extravagant cost. The surgeons had complained that when appointed to officiating charges, they did not receive the rates laid down in Paragraph 16, but only the proportion fixed for officiating officers. The mistake was a natural one to anyone unacquainted with the practical working of the Indian system; but, as he had said, the system of officiating allowances—well known to every Indian civilian, but of which the surgeons might well have been ignorant on first joining—was accepted throughout the Service as being necessary to insure a liberal allowance of furlough. And the fact of officiating allowances being given in no way conflicted with the statements of the Memorandum, which did not, before the edition of September, make any notice of any but substantive appointments. The proper way to regard the officiating allowances was as being over and above, and in addition to, the rates laid down in Paragraph 16. He thought he had now disposed of the charges of inaccuracy brought against the Memorandum issued by the India Office. The terms of the Memorandum had been strictly fulfilled; and he was very sorry if those grants were disapproved, but most men had to wait on fortune at one time or another. It was true that, at the outset, the pay of the Indian medical officer contrasted disadvantageously with that of the British medical officer similarly
    1632
    employed. But, on the other hand, the prospects of the Indian officers were greatly superior. With respect to the higher ranks, there was, he understood, no question at all. But, taking the lower rank—namely, that of surgeon—he found that from the latest Bengal Army List that there were in that Presidency 100 officers of this rank in the British Service. Of these, 93 were under five years' service—that was, 93 per cent—and received 317 rupees a-month, with no extra allowance, except in the case of two, one of whom drew 447 rupees a-month, and the other 337 rupees. That was 91 per cent on the lowest rate of pay. In the Indian Service there were 173 surgeons, of whom 46 were under five years' service. Of these, 24 held substantive or acting appointments of from 360 rupees to 550 rupees a-month—that was, from 40 rupees to 240 rupees more than the British officer of similar standing. The remaining 22 received only 286 rupees, or 31 rupees less than British officers of similar standing. So that, even in the first five years of service, when the advantage was supposed to be altogether on the side of the British as compared with the Indian Service, more than one-half of the Indian officers were in a far better position than their brethren of the Army Medical Department; while the remainder, 22 in number, drew 286 rupees a-month, as against 317 rupees drawn by 91 out of 93 officers of the British Service. That was, 91 per cent of the English Medical Department drew lowest rates as against 13 per cent drawing lowest rates in the Bengal portion of the Indian Medical Department. It was later on, however, that the real advantage of the Indian Service appeared. For, while the British surgeon of from six to 12 years' service could not, except in a few trifling instances, draw more than 452 rupees a-month, the Indian officer was drawing from 492 rupees to upwards of 1,000 rupees. He must also point out that the Civil branch, with its salaries, should not be left out of sight in considering the position of the Indian Medical Service. So far as prizes were concerned, it was more important than the Military branch. For, of 151 surgeons drawing Staff salaries, 79 were drawing them in the Civil Departments; while, of the 131 surgeons major, 87 held Civil appointments, whose emoluments far

    1633
    exceeded in value those of the military appointments held by officers of the same standing. As regarded pensions, too, the prospects of the Indian Service were far better than those of the British; while the surgeons and many of the surgeons major of the latter had no claim to pensions, but were liable to discharge after 10, 15, or 18 years on gratuities of from £1,250 to £2,500—the Indian officer, after 17 years' Indian service, could retire on £292 a-year, or could claim to continue to serve for higher rates up to £700 a-year, with the prospect of further additional pension for service in administrative grade amounting to from £950 to £1,050; the highest pension attainable by corresponding administrative service in the British ranks being £730 a-year. Those who had served 17 years got £292; 20 years, £366; 25 years, £500; and 30 years, £700. These amounts were absolutely certain. If a man should become Deputy Surgeon General, he would get at 58 £950; if Surgeon General, £1,050; while the highest British medical pension was £730. So far, therefore, as the higher branches of the Service were concerned, he did not think the case had been made out. But he had a very considerable amount of sympathy with young surgeons who went out from this country, and had to spend a considerable number of years on small salaries without promotion. The remedy for that state of things was to reduce the numbers going out. But this, as he had explained, had already been done. The reductions were beginning to produce the desired effect, and they would be still further continued. But, even at present, comparing, as he had done, the position of the surgeons of the Indian Service, taken as a whole, with that of the surgeons of the British Service, he must say that there was no doubt that the Indian Service was out-and-out the best. The competition showed it, as he said before, in the rush for it. So far from the Service being unpopular, 21 candidates had applied for places, all of whom had qualified in the examination, and they seemed exceedingly anxious to enter, notwithstanding the block in promotion at the present time, and the great number of men employed in it. The grievance was one that prevailed in all the Services of the State, and he believed it prevailed in the whole of humanity.
    1634
    In France and Germany they were going so far as to say that no man ought to work after 56, not so much that he was unable as in order that he might be moved out of the way of younger men. On those Benches there were many "grave and reverend" seigniors who were not anxious to be pushed off to make way for younger men. The same was the case in the Military and Naval Services. His sympathy was with those young men who would in the future have to bear the brunt of the Medical Service in India; and if, consistently with duty, anything could be done for them, none would be more glad than himself. The statement put forward by his right hon. and learned Friend and others should certainly receive the utmost consideration. He was sorry that he could not accept the Resolution of his right hon. and learned Friend; but he should be very glad to bring before the Government of India the statement which he had made, in order that it might receive careful consideration.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross) had not answered all the charges made against the India Office in this matter; and he (Mr. Leamy) regretted to find the hon. Gentleman had not even made a promise respecting what was really a bitter grievance—namely, the travelling expenses of those members of the Service. Men, he said, might be ordered on employed stations; and, although they might have to travel 500 or 600 miles, and although that journey might mean the expenditure of three or four months' pay, they were allowed no travelling expenses. He really thought that was a grievance which the Government ought to undertake to remedy without delay. He was sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman characterize the pamphlet issued by the Indian Medical Service in the manner in which he had done. He (Mr. Leamy) refused to believe that a body of men of the high position of those filling positions in the Medical Service of India had issued a pamphlet of that character, or that they would enter into a conspiracy to put forth publications that were grossly unfair, or calculated to impose on the Members of that House who took an interest in their case. The medical men who went out to India were men of

    1635
    spirit and of ambition, such as the Government would wish to have in its service. It was impossible that their case could have been brought forward in a more clear and temperate manner than it had been by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced it (Mr. Gibson); and it would be hard if it did not receive the most serious consideration. The hon. Gentleman said that the members of the Service were not told that they might get the administrative appointments in India. Well, the fact that, in former years, they received more of those appointments than they did at present, ought certainly to entitle them to some improvement on the miserable unemployed pay they at present received. He should say that, when such grievances were brought forward there, it was a very hard thing that they would not receive some fairer consideration than such grievances had got at the hands of the hon. Gentleman.
    DR. LYONSsaid, he believed that the statement which had been made by the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross) would be received by the Medical Schools of this country with intense regret, and something like dismay. No case had ever been presented to that House with greater ability, or in a manner better adapted to bring it home to every impartial mind, than that contained in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson); and the unsatisfactory answer which had been given to it by the Under Secretary of State could not fail to have a most injurious effect on the supply of men for the Indian Medical Service. He might remind the House that the country owed a large debt of obligation to that Department in India. Very able men had been drafted from the Medical Service of India into the general Service of that country; and some of the most distinguished servants of the Crown in India had been originally drawn from the Medical Department serving there. He would only cite the name of Dr. Cleghorn, who, at the inception of the Forest Service, had done so much to place that great branch of the Service of the State on the broad and secure basis on which it had now reached such success financially and otherwise. The Memorandum issued last year had been referred to; and, whatever a close and careful examination of that Memorandum
    1636
    might show, it was commonly known to those who became candidates only that they were to get a certain scale of pay on their going out to India; and after preparation, which occupied a considerable number of years, they were brought face to face with the fact that they were practically paid, when they went to India, about one-half, or even less than that, of what they had in all good faith contracted for when they took the position to which they proposed to devote their lives at an unusual degree of risk to their health and the sacrifice too often of their very existence. Knowing, as he did, what were the feelings of those who influenced and directed the class of young men who entered the Indian Medical Service, he said that a blow would at once be struck at the whole class who were in course of active preparation for that Service, that the area of supply would be henceforth restricted, and that they would no longer have the choice of the first intellects that devoted themselves to medicine for the service of the State in India. The higher class of young men who went into that Service were disappointed not only as to pay, but more especially at the condition of hopeless inactivity in which they had to remain two, three, four, five, and six years in India, with no definite employment, hanging on now and again at small temporary duties, but not launched on a career to which they could give their energies when young and fresh. They thus became tired and worn out, and entered on what he looked upon as most unfortunate for young men—namely, the career of grievance-mongering, and they could not help thinking of what they might have done if they had chosen other careers. He held in his hand a letter from one of the most gifted and most distinguished young men who ever entered the Public Service, and who was well known to many hon. Members of that House; and, for himself, he (Dr. Lyons) could only express his most sincere regret that he had ever had anything to do with inducing that young man to enter on a career of that kind, as either at the Bar, or in any other Public Department, he might ere now have commanded a first-class position. He had received a letter from him, in which he stated that the condition in which he was living was one of almost nomadic pauperism. What this

    1637
    young gentleman complained of most was, that he had no recognized duties to perform. He had not yet advanced on that career on which he had hoped to enter from the first; he was in a position in which he was neither going back nor forward; his energies were being wasted, and his fine intellect and enthusiasm dulled and blunted. The country, in a case like that, was losing the services of a man of the highest abilities, who would be competent to fill the highest position in the Department with high distinction to himself and great advantage to the State, were he placed in a condition to go forward, step by step, in his career. The hon. Gentleman who had spoken on behalf of the Government (Mr. J. K. Cross) had said that the matter would be taken into consideration; but he (Dr. Lyons) complained that for years the question had been under consideration, and nothing had yet come of it. He did not see why there should not be now, as formerly, means of utilizing the services of young men in the prime of life and endowed with high mental gifts in various collateral Departments in India; and he could not but believe that there were many avenues in which their talents might be utilized in an Empire of such magnitude, and where such strides in progress were being made. He regretted that these men had not been dealt with in a more generous spirit, because it did not take a great deal to satisfy them. While they naturally looked to the bettering of their pecuniary position, they were really more anxious to obtain some definite employment, some recognition of duties which they were doing for the State, and which would bring them forward and show the public what manner of men they were, and give them, at the same time, an opportunity which they so much desired of being promoted and winning distinction. He desired also to say a few words as to the senior officers of the Service, whose case was no less deserving of consideration by the House. The diminution in the number of superior administrative offices which had taken place recently arrested promotion in the higher grades, and this, in its turn, re-acted on the position and prospects of the juniors. It was also complained of that officers of longer service and superior claims had to serve under those who were their juniors in the
    1638
    Queen's Service. He trusted that immediate attention would be directed to these pressing questions by the India Office. The only effective remedy for dealing with the Medical Service was that which was applied to the Civil and Military Services—namely, the offer of favourable terms to induce the senior officers to retire, and thus make room for the juniors.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he had not heard, in his experience of the House, such a practical unanimity of opinion and feeling, from all quarters of the House, in support of the proposal brought forward by his right hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Gibson); and although the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross) had stated the case from the official point of view with great ability, he was sure the feeling of the House was that a case of great grievance and hardship had been established in regard to the members of the Indian Medical Service, and also as to the almost hopeless condition of their case as regarded promotion. A fallacy, it seemed to him, underlay the arguments of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India, when he compared the Indian Medical Service with the service of medical men in the English Army serving in India. He seemed to forget that, in one case, the officers had gone practically into exile from their own country; and, in the other case, the officers of the English Army took their turns of service in India and also at home. This, he thought, made an important difference. He did not agree with the hon. Member who had just spoken (Dr. Lyons) in two special points. In the first place, he (Mr. Plunket) was willing fully to accept, with the most complete confidence, the undertaking which had been given by the Under Secretary of State for India that he would inquire into this question, with the full intention on his part of doing justice; and he did not agree with the hon. Member for the City of Dublin when he said that, after this debate was over, all further opportunity of discussing the question had passed away. That was not the case. The position which his right hon. and learned Friend took up was this—while he was satisfied with the strong opinion which he had elicited from the House in favour of inquiry, and of remedying the

    1639
    grievances of those persons whose case he had brought forward; he, at the same time, wished it to be distinctly understood that while he accepted the assurances that had been given on the part of the Government so far as they went, the matter would be carefully watched, and unless something were done in the way of remedying the injustice of the grievances inflicted upon these officers, he should be prepared to bring their case forward again. For the present, therefore, he would be satisfied to allow the Motion to be negatived.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he wished to express a few words of sympathy with his medical brethren in India. Whatever had resulted from the discussion that evening, he thought it had been made out most emphatically to the satisfaction of the House that there was a very real discontent existing in the Indian Medical Service. As there was no smoke without fire, he believed there was some cause for this dissatisfaction, and there was no doubt that the Service was no longer as popular as it was in former years. He thought, therefore, that it was quite right that extra inducements should be held out to young men to go out, especially as it was quite evident that there had been a good deal of misconception as to the terms upon which men had entered the Service, many of them believing that after a service of two years in India they would be entitled to 400 rupees a-month. That misconception he was, however, glad to see would now be removed. He did not see why the unmeaning term "unemployed pay" should not be abolished. It was something like the old term of non-combatant applied to an Army surgeon, who often risked his life, and lost it, without being entitled to the compensation received by military officers. He thought some general arrangement should be made by which this anomaly would be removed, by which pay might be given for admitted employment on different scales. He also thought that a small but very important grievance, referring to travelling expenses, which the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy) brought under the notice of the House, ought to be remedied. There was no doubt that medical officers would in future know what to expect; but whether the best class of men would be induced to join the Service or not was
    1640
    doubtful. The present discussion would be of great service if it only induced his hon. Friend (Mr. J. K. Cross) to look into the case and try to remove some of the grievances that existed.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that, in his opinion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had done very good service in calling attention to this matter. He thought that the rancorous reference made by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross) to the pamphlets that had been issued on this subject might, no doubt, be explained by the tone in which the India Office was referred to in this pamphlet. The hon. Gentleman might think that he had made a very satisfactory statement from the official point of view; but the hon. Member must be aware that there was a large body of hon. Members of all Parties and of the three nationalities who thought that these gentlemen had a hard case, and that it ought to be remedied. He thought it was no answer whatever to say that these medical gentlemen were a very small body of men, and that therefore their claim was not urgent. As to the question of unemployed pay, he strongly approved of the observations of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson), suggesting the abolition of the term. He thought it was a stigma on the India Office that a man in the Medical Service of India could go through a whole Afghan campaign, get wounded, or, perhaps, get shot, or that he should have to face death by the bedside of a cholera patient, and yet be told that he was not employed. It was monstrous and absurd; and the Government, if it did not remove the monetary grievance, might, for its own sake, remove this verbal one. He believed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) did not intend to go to a Division; but he thought that it would be as well if the House could express its opinion in that way. He scarcely thought these medical gentlemen had been fairly treated; and, therefore, if a Division were taken, he should certainly support the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
    Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  MERCANTILE MARINE—SHIPPING LEGISLATION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MACIVER, who was precluded by the Rules of the House from moving the following Motion, of which he had given Notice:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the acknowledged failure of the whole of the shipping legislation of the last thirteen years, and the withdrawal of the Merchant Shipping Bill of this Session, in consequence of its having failed to obtain the support of any section of the seafaring or shipowning community, is evidence more than sufficient to justify the appointment of a Royal Commission, with powers to inquire both into the state of the Laws relating to shipping and also into the administration of those Laws by the Board of Trade; but that such inquiry should be of an independent character, and that the nomination of the Commissioners should be subject to the approval of Parliament,"
  said, he wished to call attention to the subjects mentioned in the Resolution. In the first place, he could not make a greater protest against the shipping legislation of the last 13 years than that made by the Board of Trade itself—legislation which he had protested against not only in the present, but in the late Parliament. He did not even wish to put the case as strongly as Sir Thomas Farrer, because he thought that gentleman had probably unintentionally exaggerated the case against his own Department. Sir Thomas Farrer, in the Memorandum published last November, spoke of the legislation of the Board of Trade as an absolute and complete failure; and with that opinion he (Mr. MacIver) fully agreed; for there could be no doubt that the present shipping legislation was in a most unsatisfactory state. But he wished especially to distinguish between the Board of Trade legislation, and between some of the work done by the Board of Trade officers during the last 13 years, which he thought had had its good, as well as its bad, points. He had seen a great deal of the work of the officers of the Board, especially at Liverpool; but also elsewhere, and had uniformly found that those men could be trusted. In Liverpool the shipowners and others had been most fortunate in the Board's officers. He believed the Board's officers at other places deserved the same thing to be said about them. They had to perform
  1642
  their duties under very great difficulties, and the want of success which occurred was due to the legislation of the last 13 years. The reason that legislation was not merely a failure, but owing to the state of the laws was much worse than a failure, was because it was endeavouring to remedy that which was not a disease. In the proposals which were circulated by the Board of Trade last November, Sir Thomas Farrer said—
  "Bill after Bill has been passed till the multiplicity of statutes, which were consolidated in one Act of 1854, has again become a scandal and reproach."
  No one who knew the facts of the case could find any fault with that statement. There were no fewer than 103 Acts upon the Statute Book at the present moment relating to Merchant Shipping—many of which, no doubt, were practically obsolete, and the result of the whole was mischievous. There were 538 clauses which imposed penalties of various kinds upon shipowners; and yet they had the statement published in official records that there was serious loss of life at sea which was preventible. While the law was wholly mischievous, he could not altogether agree with Sir Thomas Farrer's remarks about the absolute failure of the system. He believed the Board of Trade had done all they could by mischievous legislation, however unintentionally, in the last 13 years to prevent any reform in the Shipping Laws; but the common sense of the officers of the Board had lessened its evil effect. A remarkable Return had lately been furnished to the House on the Motion of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. C. M. Palmer)—a Return of the loss of life at sea during the last six years ending the 31st December, 1883, and in that Return coasting vessels were not included. The result was, that during these six years, when 12,288 persons lost their lives at sea only seven steamers were lost which were under Board of Trade inspection. Nothing, he contended, would prevent loss of life at sea, except a proper system of inspection. The legislation which had failed had been based upon a completely erroneous idea—the idea that vessels were, for some reason or other, sent to sea to be lost. On that basis, they had had the whole of the shipping legislation since 1871, and the shipping class had been treated

  1643
  as if they were quasi-criminals, a course of proceeding which he objected to. It was not a fact that shipowners, as a class, wished their vessels to go other than safe; and the evil of which complaint might readily be made was the evil of ignorance, not the evil of deliberate intention to do wrong. To send a vessel to sea to be lost was just as bad as murdering a man to get money to which he was entitled; but, if that was done, the ordinary law in both cases was strong enough to deal with the offences. The plain truth was, that, in 99 cases out of 100, vessels were lost either by the unavoidable circumstances of dangerous navigation, or in consequence of errors of judgment on the part of those in charge. He was in favour of a proper system of inspection; but anything like a universal system of surveillance must break down, and weaken the surveillance which already existed. The time to survey a ship was not when she was on the point of sailing, but when there was some opportunity of knowing what was her condition. He was strongly opposed to the appointment of an army of surveyors; and what he should recommend was that, as far as practicable, in lieu of the harassing and uncertain system of inspection that now prevailed, shipowners should be induced to place their ships under the supervision of competent registered societies, such as Lloyd's, and that the laws should be such as to strengthen the power of these societies, and make them carry out the principle of inspection in a way that would be satisfactory to those who really understood the question. He had been in communication with sailors in all parts of the country, and he desired to refer to letters which he had received from two men who seemed to be representative men. One was the Chairman of the North of England Seamen's Protection Society, and the other was the Chairman of the London Seamen's Protection Society. The representation of these, and others competent to speak, showed that the sailor's first complaint was want of employment. He complained that he was robbed of his employment by the unfair competition of foreigners, and by the unfair competition of people who were not sailors at all. The next complaint of the sailors was, that there was not a good system of inspection. If the Board of Trade
  1644
  had done what the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) suggested, the law would have been in a much better position than it was to-day; but the Board of Trade had only partially adopted the suggestion. The Board of Trade ought to exercise greater care for the interest of sailors than it exercised at present. British seamen acquired a bad character which they did not deserve, in consequence of the employment of incompetent hands. What was the legislation which seamen would wish? They would desire legislation regulating the number of men to each ship, the kind of work they had to do, the load-line, and the construction of harbours of refuge. Much of the loss of life at sea was occasioned by the want of suitable harbours of refuge. Both officers and shipowners complained that there was so much legislation with regard to shipping that they did not know where they were. What was the position of the shipmaster when he made a mistake? Under the existing system, if, by a mere error of judgment, he gave, at the wrong moment, an order to port, when he ought to have starboarded, he might have his certificate suspended for three or six months, and then what happened? He might get his certificate returned at the end of the time; but, in the meantime, he was thrown out of employment, and he had been, probably, subjected to examination in a police court, under degrading circumstances. That was a very real grievance against the existing state of the law. He did not complain of proper punishment being meted out to men who deserved it; but he contended that, if a man was unfit to hold a certificate, it ought not to be suspended—it ought to be taken away from him. During the last six years the total loss of life at sea had been 12,288. About two-thirds of that loss had occurred in sailing vessels upon our coasts, and one-third in steam vessels. He wished to argue from that, that the very great proportion of loss of life at sea was due to the want of proper harbours of refuge, which were really necessary to save life. The loss of life last year in steamers was 840; while that in sailing vessels was 1,386; and he contended that a great many of those lives would have been saved if the vessels had been able to reach harbours of refuge on the coasts. He thought he had said all that

  1645
  was necessary to make it perfectly clear not only that the legislation of the last 13 years had hopelessly failed, but also why it had failed. He believed the interests of the seamen, the shipmasters, the officers, and their employers were very much in accord; and though the most misery, no doubt, accrued to the families of those whose lives were lost, yet it was a fact that shipowners were as much interested as shipmasters and seamen, and that they were equally anxious to do all that was possible to be done to prevent loss of life. With regard to the inquiry referred to in the latter part of his Motion, he would say that, in his view, the inquiry should be of an independent character, that the persons placed upon it should be men of impartial and unbiassed mind, and the nomination of the Commission should be subject to the ratification of Parliament. He would admit the difficulty the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade must have in the appointment of right men on the Commission; but what he would urge was, that neither seamen, nor shipowners, nor the public would be satisfied unless the inquiry was a real one, with a proper and a wide reference, and conducted by those in whom the public very properly could have confidence, and he was sure the President of the Board of Trade would wish it to be of that character. He would point out those who should not be on the Commission, as they would, if they were, be judges of their own cause. He wished to speak with all respect of Sir Thomas Farrer, who, no doubt, had done his duty according to his lights; but as the Merchant Shipping legislation of the last 30 years had been, in great part, due to his exertions, he did not think that gentleman ought to be placed on the Commission. Then, with regard to Mr. Rothery, the Wreck Commissioner, from whom he had never received anything but personal kindness, he did not think he should be on the Commission. Coming to another name, that of the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed), he had every appreciation of him; but there were many shipowners who would not be satisfied with him as a Member of the Commission. There were many persons who thought that hon. Gentleman was not a perfectly disinterested individual in regard to this matter. Then there was the hon. Mem-
  1646
  ber for Carnarvonshire, who had been the junior Member for Liverpool in the last Parliament (Mr. Rathbone); he ought not to be one of the judges, for this reason—from his (Mr. Mac Iver's) own personal knowledge, he had long maintained cordial relations with Sir Thomas Farrer and Sir Charles Adderley, and, consequently, he was indirectly responsible for the legislation which had taken place. He would likewise mention another gentleman, Mr. Thomas Hughes Jackson, the present Chairman of the Liverpool Shipowners' Association, who ought in no circumstances whatever to be on the Commission. There were few persons more popular in Liverpool than he; but his interests were not those of shipowners generally, as his firm were the principal partners in a Company which owned Spanish steamers, and his business was to run steamers under the Spanish flag with crews consisting of Spaniards. He (Mr. MacIver) had now said all he wished to say, and he hoped he had not spoken with any want of personal respect of any of those gentlemen. He had spoken of those he thought ought not to be on the Commission. What he had said of Mr. Jackson applied to him only on account of the Spanish objection. Speaking on behalf of his own constituents, he should be glad to see upon the Commission any gentleman of acknowledged position whom they believed to be impartial and independent; but the fear they had was that those whose shortcomings ought to be inquired into might themselves be appointed; and for that reason, therefore, they held that the Commissioners should not be judges of their own case.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that from the appearance of the House there was no great interest taken in the subject brought forward for its notice; and, therefore, he was not called upon to make any lengthened reply to the somewhat discursive remarks that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver). Moreover, he failed to see any connection between the speech and the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Chamberlain) objected to the Resolution as it stood upon the Paper; because, in the first place, it was ungrammatical, and was hardly common sense; and, still more, it was entirely superfluous, for the facts contained in it were inaccurately stated.

  1647
  What he could deny was that the shipping legislation of the last 13 years had absolutely failed. On the contrary, that was not the case. He admitted, that there were defects in that legislation; and it was in consequence of those defects that he ventured to submit his Merchant Shipping Bill to the House during the present Session; but that was very far from an admission that the whole shipping legislation had absolutely failed. In his opinion, in the first place, the inquiries which had been instituted under Mr. Rothery's presidency in the Wreck Court, and also in the local Courts, had thrown a flood of light on this subject that was of the utmost value; and although, unfortunately, the loss of life was still very great, and beyond what it ought to be, yet it would have been much greater but for the efforts of the Board of Trade, and especially of the surveyors, who had so often detained ships until changes were made before they were allowed to go to sea. He knew that 800 ships had been thus detained; and in almost every case they had either not been allowed to go to sea at all, or had only been allowed to go to sea after they were altered to meet the rules required by the Board of Trade. Then the hon. Member went on to urge the abandonment of the Merchant Shipping Bill, in consequence of its not having obtained the support of any members of the ship-owning community, of the shipmasters, or of the sailors. For his own part, he (Mr. Chamberlain) denied that the hon. Member was entitled, in any sense, to speak in that way. He could say he had not found any single seaman, shipowner, or shipmaster who agreed with the hon. Member in the views he expressed on the subject; and he would probably be as entirely mistaken in saying that no section of these communities were in favour of the original Bill. On a former occasion, he (Mr. Chamberlain) had shown that several shipowners and seamen were strongly in favour of the principle of the Bill, with the Amendments he had proposed to introduce; but he had no information that a large number of respectable shipowners desired that the Bill should not be proceeded with on the lines of the Amendments that were proposed. Coming to the shipmasters, he might say that he had received a resolution from a most independent body of shipmasters of Hull urging
  1648
  that the Bill should be pressed to a Division, and sent to a Grand Committee. With regard to the sailors, they were seldom at home, and they did not know how to make their opinions felt and known. He had been unable to find any persons in that rank of life who were justified in claiming to represent the opinions of the seafaring population; but he had seen numerous letters from individual sailors, and from many of them he had received a hearty "God speed!" and a hope that he would be successful in his legislation. The Government, he might say, had no intention of appointing such a Commission as that which was suggested by the hon. Member. As to the administration of the Board of Trade, he had been good enough to accuse the permanent officials for all the legislation which had been enacted. Nothing could be more unfair, for, after all, a good deal of the legislation, of which he (Mr. Chamberlain) complained quite as strongly as the hon. Member, had been forced on the House and the Board of Trade, and was not legislation of a character to which they gave a deliberate and full assent. The officials of the Board and the Parliamentary Chiefs of that Board pointed out, when the principal part of this legislation was before the House, some of the difficulties which had subsequently arisen. The hon. Member said that the theory of the Board of Trade had always been that the loss of ships was a crime, and that their object had been to penalize the shipowners. That was absolutely the reverse of the fact, and the legislation presented to the House was based upon the opposite principles. It was based on the belief that, in the great majority of cases, these casualties were due, not to wilful criminality on the part of shipowners—such an idea would be too horrible to entertain for a moment—but were due to ignorance, and sometimes, also, to negligence. It was the object of the Board of Trade, and equally the object he had in view, to make it the general interest of shipowners that their enterprizes should be conducted in the best possible way; and he believed that, when that was done, they would have cut at the root of this great loss of life. He never claimed, and never thought it was desirable to strengthen or increase the powers of punishment already possessed by law, and which he considered

  1649
  were quite sufficient to deal with these extremely rare and exceptional cases in which there might be wilful intention on the part of individual shipowners to cast the ship away. The hon. Member went on to say that the reform of the Board of Trade was necessary; but he did not point out in what respect he desired it to be reformed. He further said that the Board should substitute a survey by registered societies; but he (Mr. Chamberlain) had to point out that these societies were only societies beyond the entire regulation, supervision, and control of the public. Accordingly, he considered that the Board of Trade was the best authority for dealing with these shipping matters. Reference had also been made by the hon. Member to harbours of refuge; but that, to his mind, opened a very large question. It would be entering into a business which the Board of Trade could not undertake; one which would involve the expenditure of many millions of money; and it would be hardly possible to do so without knowing what the result would be. Indeed, for harbours of refuge to be really of any use, they must certainly be placed on the spots where danger was likely to arise; and, in that case, it would be necessary that they should be erected at almost every 10 miles of the coast. Even then they might not be found sufficient for every purpose, and they might be found of very little use in limiting or reducing the terrible loss of life that sometimes occurred. The wreck of the Royal, Charter, which involved the loss of hundreds of lives, for instance, took place within a very few miles of the great harbour of Holyhead. He came now to the conclusion of the hon. Member's Resolution, as to the nomination of this Commission; and as regarded the hon. Member's remarks upon that point of the case, in which he desired to know something of its nature, and had been good enough to give some advice as to who should and who should not be appointed, he must say he would have valued the hon. Member's observations the more if the hon. Gentleman had not insinuated that there was an intention on the part of the Government to appoint an unfair Commission, for the purpose of whitewashing what he was pleased to call the incriminated Department. He would
  1650
  point out to the hon. Member that there were two classes—there were two interests which would come under inquiry—the Board of Trade, whose administration had been severely criticized, and the shipowners, whose practice with regard to the management of their ships and insurance had also been the subject of complaint; and it would be necessary that the Commission should be one which would hold the balance as between the parties, and might be relied upon to make an exhaustive and impartial inquiry into both sides of the question. If the hon. Member's view were carried out, it would be impossible to put a shipowner on the Commission. That would be a mistake; but it ought not to consist entirely or mainly of shipowners. All that was necessary was that the majority of the Commission should consist of thoroughly well-instructed and impartial persons, whose opinion and report upon the facts presented to them would command the confidence of the public. If the hon. Member wished to know what sort of a Commission would be appointed, he would refer him to the Unseaworthy Ships Commission, appointed some years ago, and over which the Duke of Somerset presided, regarding which he had not heard any charge of partiality made. Accordingly, he hoped he would find Gentlemen as able and as well qualified as them. It was a matter of great difficulty and complexity; but the communications were still going on, and while he would be delighted to lay the names of the Commission before the House, he must say that, owing to the considerable correspondence which he had received, he might be unable to complete the list before Parliament was prorogued. He, therefore, found it impossible to give any pledge on the subject. In conclusion, he would say that he honed he had sufficiently answered all the points that had been raised by the hon. Member.

  IRELAND—LIMERICK CITY (EXTRA POLICE TAX).

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. PARNELL, who had the following Notice upon the Paper:—To call attention to the quartering during the past three years of an extra Police Force in the City of Limerick; to the attempt

    1651
    of the Government to impose an oppressive tax upon the citizens of Limerick for the maintenance of such extra Force; and to the proclamation of the City by the Lord Lieutenant under the authority of the Crime Prevention Act; and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient, considering the peaceful and Law-abiding condition of the city as proved by Judicial and other official evidence, that the police force quartered there be immediately reduced to the strength of the ordinary free force; that the claim of the Government against the Corporation for the maintenance of the extra force being a claim for expenses illegally incurred, and persisted in against the will and in defiance of the protests of the Corporation, duly acting within its legal powers, should be abandoned; and that, as there is nothing questionable or exceptional in the condition of the city, it is for the public interest that the Lord Lieutenant's proclamation be revoked,"
    said: I have placed a Resolution on the Paper of the House with reference to the quartering of an extra Police Force in the City of Limerick, and the imposition of a very heavy tax upon the people. Now, a sum of £2,200 has been imposed on the citizens to defray the charge of the force; but under the Rules of the House, a Division having been taken upon one of the previous Amendments, I shall not be able to have a Division upon the question. I therefore propose to call attention to the matter, with the hope that the ventilation and light thrown upon it by the discussion may induce the House to relieve the unfortunate people of Limerick from the payment of this very heavy, cruel, and uncalled-for exaction. For a long series of years, the ordinary free force of 80 men had been found amply sufficient to preserve the peace in the City of Limerick; and this was during a period when considerable disturbances had taken place in other parts of Ireland, and extra police were quartered in those parts, and excused upon the ground of the unusually disturbed state of these localities. Even during all this time, it was not found necessary to increase the police force of Limerick; and the free force of 80 men was found to be amply sufficient, when the population was actually larger than it is at the present moment. This state of affairs lasted up till the midsummer of 1881; but, perhaps, before I go any further, I had better give an example of the extremely peaceable condition of the City and the great freedom from crime
    1652
    which the City enjoys. The statistics for the years 1880 and 1881, the two years immediately preceding the sending of these extra police, and also the two years when the Land League agitation was at its height, and when it might be expected that any reflex action would have shown itself and rendered necessary an increased force of extra police, are as follows:—On the first Quarter Sessions in the month of January there was only one criminal case; and the Chairman said that there was only one case to go before the Grand Jury, a state of affairs highly creditable to the City. At the next Quarter Sessions, the Chairman again commented on the character of the cases, and said that the labours of the Grand Jury would be extremely light, there being only two bills to go before them. At the Midsummer Quarter Sessions, the Chairman said that there were only eight bills to go before the Grand Jury, none of which required any observations from him. The calendar was much below the average, and only a few unimportant cases were to go for trial. I have now dealt with the Sessions. Now with regard to the Assizes. At the Spring Assizes of 1880, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald said that, only for some trivial cases, he would be entitled to a pair of white gloves for a maiden Assize. At the Summer Assizes Mr. Justice Lawson stated that the City was in its normal condition, and that there were only three cases to go for trial. Again, in the Quarter Sessions, 1881, there were only five criminal cases for trial; in the April Sessions there were only two cases; at the June Sessions there were only six trivial cases; and at the October Sessions there were only six similar cases. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald also commented on the lightness of the calendar as regarded the Assizes. At the Summer Assizes Mr. Justice Lawson said that there were only five cases to go before the Grand Jury of the ordinary petty kind. At the previous Assizes in 1880 and 1881 the cases were usually of a very trivial kind, and it was a matter of frequent occurrence that there should be no prisoners at all. Now, Sir, I have quoted these statistics to show that, in these two years 1880 and 1881, when there was considerable excitement and a good deal of agrarian crime throughout many parts of Ireland, which period

    1653
    has been always quoted by Ministers as one in which agrarian and political excitement had been more prevalent than for a very long interval before in that country, in the City of Limerick, according to the testimony of Judges Lawson and Fitzgerald, who presided at the Assizes, there was an almost entire absence of any crime whatever. It was only upon one occasion, when some soldiers entered the town and grossly insulted the faith and nationality of the citizens, that there was a disturbance, and several persons were assaulted upon the railway platform. This occurrence would not have had any serious result were it no for the reckless and unnecessary measures adopted for quelling the disturbances. Alter that had passed over, the city resumed its normal state of quietness until 1882, when Limerick experienced the misfortune of having that notorious and zealous gentleman, Mr. Clifford Lloyd, imported into their district as District Resident Magistrate. Then followed what I may and will fitly describe as a reign of white terror, under the régime of Mr. Clifford Lloyd and those persons by whom he was surrounded, and it continued all the while he was there. His residence was surrounded by police, his office was guarded by police, and he was accompanied everywhere by constables; and even that estimable and popular stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Felix M'Carthy, was forced, very much against his will and constant protest, to have a guard of police following him about day and night. The police were doubled in number in all the streets and at all the corners. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had police at his garden parties, and even the lady members of his family were escorted by Constabulary. No possible excuse was lost, in fact, for the presence of additional constables in the City. When the Crimes Act of 1882 was passed, Mr. Clifford Lloyd induced the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim the City under the provisions of that Act. I believe it was for the first time, after the passage of this Act, that the municipal authorities could legally impose the cost of the extra police. I believe it was under the Act of William IV. that the City was proclaimed, two months anterior to the passage of the Crimes Act. Now, I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) that it is a strange
    1654
    coincidence that the period when it was alleged that a necessity had arisen for the proclamation of the City, and when the maintenance of these extra police was forced upon the people, arose at a period which coincided exactly with the coming of Mr. Clifford Lloyd into the City. Rightly or wrongly, Mr. Clifford Lloyd may have believed his life was in danger, and he may have thought it really necessary to be constantly attended by 30 or 40 armed policemen; but I submit that the justification for that attendance of armed policemen does not also justify the imposition of the tax upon the citizens of Limerick, for they had nothing to do with the agrarian disturbances of the other counties of Cork, Clare, Kerry, Tipperary, or Galway, over which Mr. Clifford Lloyd's jurisdiction extended. In my opinion, the Act of William IV. was used for a purpose which it was never intended, as it was never alleged that Mr. Clifford Lloyd feared any danger to his life, or the property of the citizens of Limerick; but he, in fact, protected himself from the enmity of persons in the surrounding counties. Extra police were not required to preserve the peace of the City of Limerick, but for the purpose of preserving Mr. Clifford Lloyd, when he made it his headquarters for the sake of enjoying society, &c. I will not say that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had designedly any hand in keeping alive this excitement in the year 1882; but it is a remarkable fact that, after his departure, all the feverishness and excitement and reports of outrages and attempts upon lives disappeared also, especially from the English newspapers. The citizens of Limerick, therefore, believed that they were justly entitled to be relieved from the burden of taxation which they were paying for police not required. It is true that, in towns in England, the charge for police is much higher that in Ireland; but in both England and Scotland the municipal authorities provide, as well as pay, for their local police, and they control that force. In Ireland, however, the local authorities have no control whatever over their police. I am anxious to hear what reasons the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will assign for this charge upon a City which is wholly unnecessary, and shall not therefore farther occupy the attention of the House. I hope, however,

    1655
    Parliament will remove, if possible, so unfair a burden from this peaceable and industrious City.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, that if his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had been able to have moved the Resolution of which he had given Notice, he (Mr. Dawson) would have had great pleasure in seconding it, for he looked upon the imposition of the tax referred to in it as most iniquitous and unjust. According to law, the protection of an extra police force could not be obtained until the City was proclaimed, or unless such protection was asked for by the magistrates. Now, of the total amount claimed, £600 odd was levied for a period prior to the proclamation of the City, and when the magistrates had not asked for extra police. For that sum, at all events, the demand was clearly illegal. Again, how could they assess for 1884 the tax struck for 1882, the ratepayers not being the same? He contended that if the Corporation failed within the first six months to levy the first assessment, the Government was bound to take any action that might be necessary to levy it; and that when they did not do so in 1882 or 1883, they could not enforce it at all. In 1882, the peace and order of Limerick were testified to by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions and the Judge of Assize. He (Mr. Dawson) himself was in Limerick, and found it at every corner studded with police. When one walked into the peaceful City, one was really amazed to know what was the reason of its being under arms. When he was there a horse fell, and the driver was thrown out of the vehicle. The guardians of the peace turned their backs on the accident, and went inside the barracks, leaving horse and man to be attended to by civilians. He (Mr. Dawson) went to the barracks and inquired of the police if they understood their duties; but he got short courtesy, till he told them he would bring their conduct under the notice of the authorities. They seemed to think their duty was to protect Mr. Clifford Lloyd and make a demonstration of a terrorizing character in his favour, not in any way to assist in maintaining the civil peace and order. Then, in 1883, they had again the testimony of the Judges of Assize and Chairman of Quarter Sessions as to the peace of the City. In this year, at the January Quarter Sessions, there
    1656
    were only three small cases for trial; and the March calendar included only five trifling cases. At the April Sessions there was only a single case, in which a police constable pleaded guilty to larceny; and in July the Chairman was presented with a pair of white gloves. Would it be believed by the Prime Minister that, notwithstanding these facts, extra police were still imposed on the City, and that it was still burthened with extra taxation? Though Mr. Clifford Lloyd had carried his irritating policy to another atmosphere, still an extra tax was imposed on this peaceful City. He would ask the House to put the statements of the highest judicial officers against any trifling reason that might be given for the retention of this cruel tax. He thought that unless they beard something startlingly new there was a strong case for the intended Resolution of his hon. Friend.
    MR. SYNANsaid, that, being more or less personally connected with the City of Limerick, within a few miles of which he lived, he could bear testimony to the truth of what his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) had said as to the peaceable condition of the City during the periods to which he had referred. There were three periods to which his hon. Friend had called particular attention—one was the military riot in 1881; another was the visit of Mr. Clifford Lloyd in 1882; and the third was the period since the City returned to its normal condition in 1883 and 1884. The House could scarcely believe that, at that moment, extra police were kept in Limerick; and that, at the Assizes, which expired a few days ago, a compulsory presentment of £400 was levied on the City, besides a compulsory presentment of £400 made at the Spring Assizes. Why should that be, when the City was in its normal condition, and when every citizen, and all those living within a few miles distance, could give personal testimony to that fact? He asked the House and the country why should the military riot of 1881 be the cause of levying a compulsory contribution upon the citizens? A few weeks ago there was a military riot in Lichfield, in England. Was there any allegation there that there should be an extra police or military force imposed upon the citizens of Lichfield? On the occasion of the military riot at Limerick in 1881, the citizens

    1657
    asked for an inquiry from the Government; and if that inquiry had been given, it would have been proved conclusively that there was no necessity whatever for an extra police force. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would remember that, besides this extra police force, the City of Limerick was now paying £1,500 a-year for a night watch to keep order in its streets. Those extra contributions came like the last straw on the camel's back, to break and to reduce to bankruptcy a great portion of the citizens. Barring the military riot of 1881, the judicial statistics of 1880 and 1881 conclusively proved that the City was in a normal state of tranquillity. When Mr. Clifford Lloyd came the state of the City was normal. Mr. Clifford Lloyd made the City his head-quarters for four counties, and he had his police force organized in Limerick for the purposes of the whole district. Why the citizens of Limerick should bear the expense of that force he (Mr. Synan) was totally at a loss to comprehend. The people of Limerick, who did not want any protection—and, in fact, protested against it—were compelled by Mr. Clifford Lloyd to accept protection. The citizens of Limerick were very badly able to pay this extraordinary levy of £2,200. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland knew as much about the matter as he (Mr. Synan) did, the right hon. Gentleman would press upon the Prime Minister the necessity of conciliating the goodwill of the citizens of Limerick by relieving them of this burden altogether, or at least from a great portion of it. Of this sum of £2,200, £291 was levied by compulsory presentment before 1881, and £481 from 30th March to 30th May, 1882, when the City was proclaimed under the Crimes Act. The sum levied by compulsory presentment since the proclamation of the City was £689, a compulsory presentment of £400 was made at last Spring Assizes, and another of a like amount at the present Assizes. Would the Chief Secretary show any justification for these levies whatsoever? The Lord Lieutenant went to Limerick last year for the agricultural show, and surely he could bear testimony to the tranquillity of the City. When he was there, there was no necessity whatsoever for an extraordinary police force; but Mr. Clifford Lloyd filled the
    1658
    City with police, and lined the railway with police for a distance of 12 miles. Mr. Clifford Lloyd made the Lord Lieutenant believe that that force was necessary; and he was afraid the Lord Lieutenant was abused by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, who made use of his position for the purpose of raising himself in the opinion of the Government, and enabling him to take a higher position in Egypt, which he was not able long to retain. Would the evidence of Mr. Clifford Lloyd be relied on as against the evidence of those who lived in Limerick or its vicinity? The citizens were hardly able to pay their ordinary rates, and it was cruelty to make this extraordinary levy of £2,200. How were the Government to levy this sum? The Corporation refused to make the levy. It had no physical body; and they could not attach the Corporation; and surely the Government did not mean to attach the members of the Corporation or the citizens, for not paying a tax which they said they had no right to pay. He appealed to the Government to consider this case upon its equitable grounds, and win the goodwill of the 40,000 citizens of Limerick by giving up, if necessary, the whole of their demand. He would wish to see the Limerick Corporation compromise with the Government by giving up their own force, and allowing the special force to be put in its place under the control of the Corporation. The Corporation would not lose anything by this arrangement, and the peace of their City would be better kept at night than under the present antiquated system. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to hold out the olive branch to these 40,000 citizens. Let him tell the House that he had determined to abandon a portion, if not the whole, of this unjust exaction. At any rate, he hoped the Government would not make the people of Limerick pay for Mr. Clifford Lloyd's despotism.
    MR. TERVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), in the historical account he gave of the transaction he took so much exception to, was quite accurate as to his dates, so far as he (Mr. Trevelyan) could follow them, and had been as brief as, under the circumstances, was possible. He would endeavour to follow the hon. Member in that respect, though he might, perhaps, put a different complexion upon

    1659
    the same transactions. The matter was divided by few steps. The hon. Member for the City of Cork stated that long before—certainly for 12 years before—1882 the peace of Limerick was safeguarded by a free force of 80 men. Where, however, he wished to join issue with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was with regard to the more recent part of his historical narrative. He could not agree with the hon. Member in thinking that that movement, which he described as "a formidable movement, accompanied by a considerable amount of turbulence and crime," did not extend to the City of Limerick. The City of Limerick was in a very serious state during the height of that agitation in Ireland—in a state which he was glad to say was very different from what it was in at the present moment. On the 30th May, 1882—the hon. Member was quite correct in saying so—the force of 80 men was increased by 50 extra men, not under the Crimes Act, as was supposed, but under the 13th section of the 6 Will. IV. c. 13, which permitted the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim a city in a state of disturbance, and to introduce extra police, a moiety of the cost of which should be paid by the community. What was the state of Limerick before the introduction of these men? There was a series of riots, very serious several of them; but all of them sufficiently serious as showing that there was a bad spirit among the rough portion of the population, specially directed against the police, and of a character and extent and bitterness which rendered the force of 80 men not sufficient to preserve the peace of the City, and, above all, not sufficient to preserve their own safety and the safety of those who were concerned in the maintenance of order. There were several occurrences in Limerick which showed that there was a sympathy there with the violent state of feeling in agricultural matters, which was the great cause of the disordered state of Ireland at that period. On the 23rd of June, 1881, as the police were escorting sheriffs and bailiffs they were attacked and stoned by a large mob, and with great difficulty reached their destination. That showed, as he had said, that there was a great deal of sympathy in a certain part of the population of that town with that violent state of feeling on agrarian matters then
    1660
    prevalent. On the 2nd of July a sub-constable was attacked and stoned by the mob while arresting a man. On the 3rd of July two policemen in Nelson Street were attacked with stones. On the 4th of September there was a very serious riot indeed, which undoubtedly ended in an attack upon the police of a most dangerous and ominous nature, ending in the police being attacked and stoned from all sides and brought into a situation of very great danger. On the 16th of October there was another very serious riot, not unconnected with recent political events; on the 6th of November there was stone-throwing; and on the 13th of January the police were attacked while escorting Land League prisoners, the stone-throwing being so severe that nothing but the rapid movement of the cars prevented a serious calamity. In the same month there was a case of larceny of an immense quantity of dynamite, and an attempt to blow up the police quarters. On the 10th and 23rd of April serious riots had taken place; and on the 20th of May three policemen had been attacked by a furious mob. In consequence of these occurrences, in May, 1882, 50 extra police were introduced into the City, and there they stayed for a year and a fortnight. All this time negotiations, the nature of which it was unnecessary to describe minutely, were going on between the magistrates and the Town Council on the one hand, and the Irish Government on the other, the object of the local authorities being to represent the police force as unnecessary, and asking it to be removed, and the Irish Government maintaining the opposite opinion. On the 12th of June, 1883, the first modification of the situation had taken place, and the extra police had been reduced to 20 men. Things had still further improved, and on the 22nd of August the Government came to the conclusion to reduce the extra force to 10 men, at which it stood at present, the cost of these 10 men being to the City £344 a-year, or about ¾ d. in the pound on the valuation of Limerick. That was an extremely small sum for so considerable a city to pay. The hon. Member for the City of Cork was unwilling that he (Mr. Trevelyan) should quote the case of English cities; but one of the first he had before him was Northampton, where the local rates paid £2,846 every year for police

    1661
    —that was to say, a sum exceeding by £500 the total of those arrears that were now owed by Limerick. The state of things in Limerick, at present, was that there was a debt of £2,376, or thereabouts; that the town paid £344 a-year by way of extra police; and that it likewise paid £1,500 a-year for a force of 23 or 24 night watchmen, who preserved the peace of the streets, the situation being, he must say in passing, that the opinion of the Irish Government was that this force, which the citizens of Limerick paid £1,500 a-year for, did not contribute in any material degree to the peace of the City. ["Oh, oh!"] That it did so was only the opinion of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan). It might be that its construction was more agreeable to the civic authorities of Limerick; but as efficient guardians of the peace, he did not think these watchmen stood very high, and one of the propositions which had been made by the Irish Government to the local authorities of Limerick included the reduction and gradual extinction of this force. Whatever might be the final arrangement between the Irish Government and the Limerick civic authorities, everything he had read in the matter lead him to think that there was no surer way of relieving the citizens of Limerick from their burden than the extinction of this antiquated and very useless force. He now came to the arrears, of which a sum of over £2,300 still remained to be paid. Into the legality or illegality of that charge he could not enter in that House. The question had been tried before the Queen's Bench, and the Queen's Bench had found that the Government had a right to this money. On an application to the Judge of Assize, the Judge had held that there was no course but a fiat to compel the Town Council to levy the money. It had then become the legal duty of the Town Council to strike a rate for the purpose, and a mandamus had finally been granted to compel them to do so. If there was any sum of money that, according to the laws of this country, was justly due—he was not speaking of any question of moral or administrative right or wrong—it was this sum that was justly due by the City of Limerick for extra police. Not only was it due, but the Government had it not in their power to excuse it. There
    1662
    was no method by which it could be paid, except the statutory method—payment by the citizens of Limerick. This £2,300 was the arrears of several years, and he had said that, if divided over those years, it would have come to only £800 or £900 a-year. It was not, he would repeat, in the power of the Government to excuse the payment of it. If the Government were to excuse this sum, because the local authorities objected to pay it, there would then be an end to all regular government in Ireland. ["No, no!"] Why, it was a clear case of refusing to pay taxes, legally imposed, after as fair an appeal to the Courts of Law as was possible. It was impossible that the Government could remit the sum. But there was one thing which the Government were prepared to do, now that things had returned to their normal state in Ireland. The Government were extremely anxious to act in accordance with the opinions of responsible Corporations and responsible Representative Bodies, where those Bodies existed. If the Corporation of Limerick were seriously of opinion that 80 men of the old free force were sufficient to do the duty of their City, the Government would try to make arrangements to make these 80 men do the duty. But it must be understood, and to this he requested the attention of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, that if it should be proved that these men, who did the duty of the City up to the troubled times, were not sufficient now, not only by the existence of crimes of a very grave description, but by serious riots, and especially by riots directed against the authority of the police, then the Lord Lieutenant would be perfectly justified in resorting, not necessarily to the Crimes Act, but to Section 13 of the Act of William IV., and of proclaiming the City as being in a state of disturbance. But if, however, the local authorities were prepared to say that the City was not now in a state of disturbance, and that—they caring, as they were presumed to care, for the peace and honour of the City—the duty could be henceforth done by the force which did it formerly, the Lord Lieutenant would seriously consider whether he should not revert to the old state of things. As to the arrears of the past, he was sorry to say he could hold out no hope whatever. The hon. Member for Limerick had

    1663
    asked him how they were to be exacted. Well, he would say, in reply, that was their business. They certainly intended to get in the just debts of the Government, and not to give a terrible example to the rest of Ireland; but, at the same time, in the matter of keeping the peace of a City like Limerick, they were anxious to act with and not against the local authorities, who, he firmly believed, were as anxious as men could be for the peace of a great City.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Trevelyan) had argued the question in a narrow, dry, and unsympathetic spirit, and more in the spirit of a lawyer than of a statesman. He had evaded the essential point of difference between English and Irish cities in regard of the police force. The night watch of the City of Limerick, which the right hon. Gentleman had ridiculed, had, in recent years, been greatly improved in efficiency by the care of the Corporation; the peace of the City did not surfer by their guardianship; and if the Corporation of Limerick were given what the people of Northampton had—the charge of their own police—poor as they were, they would be found not unwilling to defray its cost, rather than submit to the humiliation and outrage of being governed by a police force over which they had no control. But, as it was, Limerick was the city selected by the Government for the Pasha, who had disgraced himself in Egypt, to play his pranks. The Government wished to impose a tax of 1s. in the pound on a struggling community, which already paid annually for local taxes more than 10 s. in the pound. The line which separated the artizan, the labourer, and even the small shopkeeper from the condition of the pauper, was very thin in the City of Limerick; and what the Government desired to do was to drive those people over that line. By their experiments during the last three years, the Government had increased and intensified the poverty of those struggling citizens. They had obtained the fiat of the Judge of Assize and the mandamus of the Court of Queen's Bench to enable them to enforce that unjust tax for extra police, not only against the feeling of every respectable man of every creed and Party in Limerick, but against every local authority; for in this matter the
    1664
    Government had not a respectable man in Limerick on their side. The Corporation, the Grand Jury, and the City Magistrates were against them. He maintained, however, that the charge was illegal, for various formalities required by law to give it validity had not been complied with; and he would challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to answer his criticisms in that respect. Passing to the merits of the question, he said it had not been denied that, even in most troublous times, a force of 80 police was ordinarily sufficient to maintain the peace of Limerick. He complained that there had been a suppression of material facts in the narratives given to the House by the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to what had led up to the excited state of affairs which originally prevailed. An excursion train went from Waterford to Limerick, bringing on it a number of Cavalry soldiers, who spent the day in Limerick, got drunk, and acted in the most rowdy manner, hustling the citizens they met, insulting them by offensive allusions to their country and creed, and attacking them on the railway platform. A conflict with the military resulted; and very soon afterwards, when the crowd were excited by the outrage on their country and their faith, they came into contact with a body of police, who were ordered by the Chief Constable left in charge of them to fire on the people. That was the first of a series of weapon firings which excited the temper of the people of Limerick. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would deny that the Government themselves were so convinced of the misconduct of the police that they had to pay compensation from the public purse? If kindness had been used towards the people, and if there had been in Dublin Castle a conscientious Government, who had sent down a person of a calm and judicious temperament, quietness and peace would have been restored in 24 hours. But instead of that, they sent down Mr. Clifford Lloyd, a man of personal arrogance, and intoxicated with the lust of power, and for his train and retinue the citizens of Limerick were now called upon to pay 1s. in the pound. He (Mr. Sexton) had stayed in Mallow a short time while Mr. Clifford Lloyd was there, and the town had more the appearance of a

    1665
    place in a state of siege than an ordinary town inhabited by peaceful citizens. He wished to know why the supposed military necessities of Mr. Clifford Lloyd had to be paid for by the City of Limerick as a financial area? Mr. Clifford Lloyd was sent to Ireland as the Pasha of a Province; and, whatever the right hon. Gentleman might say with regard to the identity between the citizens of Limerick and the rural population in the course of the recent movement, he (Mr. Sexton) would say to him that it was the condition of the rural population and the passions excited by the landlords that sustained the movement; and the relation of the City of Limerick at the most was not a relation of interest, but a relation of sympathy with the bulk of their fellow-countrymen. He asked, therefore, why the burden should have been thrown upon the City, and not extended over the Province? He would tell the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the Corporation of Limerick had no power to levy these rates at all; nor did the Acts of Parliament, under which they operated, entitle them to collect this money. The rates fell due, and should have been collected under the spring and summer levies of 1882 and the spring levy of 1883. The right hon. Gentleman had graciously said that Limerick had returned to its normal state, and the 10 extra men should be removed. They asked that those 10 men should be sent away immediately; that the Proclamation, which was always unjust, and was now absurd, should be removed; and that the money demand upon the City of Limerick should be abandoned. Nothing could be more unwise than to persist in a demand of that kind. The Government would find that the game was not worth the candle; and he (Mr. Sexton) advised them to abandon, with as good a grace as they could assume, a demand which, with all their strength, and with all their skill, they might not find it so easy to enforce.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought that the discussion that evening had been of a character to throw a good deal of light upon the past method adopted by the Government for maintaining order in Ireland. Having listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he was free to confess that he was not altogether without sym
    1666
    pathy with the position which had been taken up by the hon. Members from Ireland. He wished the House to recollect, in considering this subject, who were the parties primarily responsible for the state of disorder in Limerick, and in regard to which this extra police force was necessary. Her Majesty's Government were the parties primarily responsible; because he (Lord Randolph Churchill) recollected perfectly well that, in the spring of 1880, when the late Government left Office, the City of Limerick was as calm and peaceful as the House was at the moment he was speaking. It was not until the Government abandoned all the precautions and all the extra powers which the Irish Government up to that time had been armed with for preserving peace and order—it was not until the Government, for the sake of gaining popularity among the Irish electors of this country, gave a signal to all the elements of disorder in Ireland that they might work their will and let themselves loose—it was not until then that disorder began to appear in Limerick. He was not blaming the present Chief Secretary for Ireland for this; his Predecessor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was primarily responsible. But had the present Government been content to follow the example of their Predecessors, and taken reasonable precaution for the preservation of order in Ireland, they would not have been discussing, at that moment, the question whether Limerick should pay this large debt to the Government or not. He therefore thought the House ought to place the blame upon the right shoulders, and should remember that the primary responsibility for all those disorders rested upon the Government. He was amused at the attitude taken up by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in regard to this sum of money, when he remembered the loose and immoral way in which the Government dealt with arrears of rent to Irish landlords. He said it was a just debt owing to the Government; that those were arrears, and must be enforced; and that the Government must collect the debts legally due. He should like to know why the Government were to possess rights denied to Irish landlords—why was this rigid economical view to be taken in their case? There was

    1667
    another reason why he should be inclined to make some excuse for the citizens of Limerick, and that was because he was not at all tempted to disagree greatly with the criticisms passed on Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He had always held one opinion about that gentleman. Although Mr. Lloyd might be, and he had no doubt was, a well-intentioned servant of the Crown in Ireland, his acts towards the people were certainly not equal to the excellence of his intentions. Wherever that gentleman went, whether in Ireland or in Egypt, he somehow managed to be the source of disaster and disturbance. He thought it was not unfair, therefore, with regard to those disturbances and disorders in Limerick, to lay the blame not only first of all on Her Majesty's Government, but, secondly, on the agent whom they employed. But the practical point was this—how were the Government going to get this money? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland evaded that point, and said that that was a matter for him. But it was a matter for the House of Commons also. It appeared to be involved in considerable legal doubt whether the Government were entitled to levy this tax; and whether the Corporation had not the legal technicalities on their side. Was the Chief Secretary for Ireland going to create disturbances in Limerick for the purpose of recovering this £2,300? It was eminently a matter for compromise. The citizens of Limerick would smart under a sense of an intolerable grievance if this £2,300 was extorted from them, and the right hon. Gentleman would thereby be creating great mischief and trouble. That would be exceedingly ill-judged, especially since the right hon. Gentleman now stated that, in accordance with the desires of the Corporation, the Government were going to do away with the extra police.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the House was to be congratulated on the statesmanlike speech of the noble Lord, who was probably better acquainted with Ireland than nine-tenths of the Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench. He held in his hand a book called The Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay, by his nephew, George Otto Trevelyan, a gentleman who, he believed, was at the present moment on
    1668
    the Treasury Bench. Although the rights of the work were reserved, he trusted that the Privileges of the House would protect him if he read a short extract from it. At page 252 there was a statement of a remarkable character, which bore directly upon the subject upon which the House was now engaged. It was a statement which dealt with the Reform Bill of 1832, and of the agitation connected therewith, and the writer said—
    "But those very men were now binding themselves by a declaration that, unless the Bill passed, they would pay no taxes, nor purchase property distrained by the tax gatherer. In thus renouncing the first obligation of a citizen they did, in fact, draw the sword, and they would have been cravens if they had left it in the scabbard."
    But the most remarkable part of the statement was to come. The writer went on to say—
    "Lord Wilton did something to enhance the claim of his historic house upon the national gratitude by giving practical effect to this audacious resolve, and, after the lapse of two centuries, another great rebellion, more effectual than its predecessors, and so brief and bloodless that history does not recognize it as a rebellion at all, was inaugurated by the essentially English proceeding of a quiet country gentleman telling the collector to call again."
    If that passage were read to the Limerick Corporation at a penny reading, it would bring down the house, for they had it under the hand of the right hon. Gentleman, litera scripta manet, that to resist the imposition of taxes—not exceptional taxes under the Prevention of Crime Act, but the Queen's Taxes—was an "essentially English proceeding." He would ask the right hon. Gentleman why what, in the case of 1832, became "an essentially English proceeding" should be absolutely wrong in the case of the Corporation of Limerick when it became an essentially Irish proceeding? He wanted to know if the Corporation and citizens of Limerick were not entitled to tell the right hon. Gentleman and his policemen to "call again?" Was the phrase to be confined to The Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay? The right hon. Gentleman must not be offended—indeed, he should be honoured—when he found the citizens of Limerick making quotations from his work, and acting upon them. He asked the right hon. Gentleman what were histories written for? Knowing the great weight attached to the words of the right hon. Gentleman,

    1669
    he could assure him that the Corporation of Limerick had made this work their daily study; and he could assure the House, as a matter of fact, that the Mayor of Limerick, a gentleman of no mean research in the historical world, himself went to bed at night with The Life and, Letters of Lord Macaulay under his pillow; and that he meant to follow the right hon. Gentleman's advice, and refuse to pay what he considered to be an unjust tax. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the collection of this tax was entirely a matter for the Government; but he begged leave to assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was a matter which also concerned the people of Limerick; and he must say that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) took up an exceedingly statesmanlike position when he said that, for the sake of this beggarly sum of £2,300, the Government proposed to apply the torch of civil discord, and light up anew the fires of 1881. They must remember the Corporation of Limerick, who had this matter in their hands, were a number of gentlemen chosen from the citizens by vote. The Corporation of Limerick took a legal view of the question. How could they avail themselves of retrospective taxes in point of law when they would be at the mercy of any man from whom they collected a single 6d.? The Corporation of Limerick, who were not without legal advice, regarded their position as being quite as impregnable as that of the right hon. Gentleman. That being so, he thought the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock was an extremely wise and prudent one—namely, that the matter was eminently one for a compromise. He hoped the noble Lord would not forget that when he occupied a prominent position on the opposite Bench. The cost of the extra police—one-half of the Chief Secretary's salary—was a paltry sum for the Government to exact from the people of Limerick at the cost of the irritation which the injustice produced. Besides, the townspeople were entitled to protection during the watches of the night from the Irish Constabulary, and ought not to be called upon to pay specially for their protection during the night. If the Corporation refused to pay the extra tax, would the
    1670
    Chief Secretary put the members in prison? What means did he propose to put in force to enforce the payment of the tax? He might put the Mayor and Corporation of Limerick in gaol; but some of them were used to that experience. From his own prison experience he was entitled to advise the Corporation that if they went to gaol for contempt of Court they would be first-class misdemeanants; and he would himself prefer to go to gaol for three months, even with a plank bed, than pay this £2,300, no matter how rich he might be in worldly wealth. The Corporation regarded themselves as the custodians of the honour of the rest of the citizens, and it was now a point of honour with them to prevent this inroad upon the pockets of the citizens. Each man in the Corporation represented not himself, but 2,000 or 3,000 citizens; and they would indeed be cravens at heart if they allowed the veiled threats of the author of The Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay, after having drawn the sword, to induce them to return it to the scabbard, and terrify them into paying this £2,300. It was exceedingly unpleasant to go into matters of this kind. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to send anyone to gaol. The right hon. Gentleman never did that; but of course they went notwithstanding. The Chief Secretary should remember that this was not a quarrel with his opponents in that House. They only spoke the sentiments of all classes in Limerick. It was a question of cash, and when they touched any man in his pocket they found it was an exceedingly soft place. The Corporation of Limerick, in refusing to pay this tax, would have behind them the sympathies and good wishes of the entire population. The example they would give would spread to other parts of Ireland; and he would ask the Government, in the interests of order and good government, whether it was worth their while to enter into this quarrel, more especially when it was a quarrel which had been, to a large extent, commenced through the instrumentality of the unfortunate Mr. Clifford Lloyd? He had read a letter published the other day from an Egyptian gentleman, the editor of an Arab journal, in regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd's conduct at Alexandria and Cairo. This Egyptian gentleman said that Mr. Clifford Lloyd's ap-

    1671
    pointment in Egypt had revived brigandage all over the country, and that never before were there so many murders and robberies, or so much brigandage in Egypt, as during the régime of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. If, then, when Mr. Clifford Lloyd changed his seat of action from the Shannon to the Nile, the same unhappy state of things followed, they were, at least, entitled to the inference that a great deal of it was owing to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. However much they might have been inclined to pay Mr. Clifford Lloyd's own bodyguard at Limerick, they might have been spared the bodyguard of the lady members of his household. ["Oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman might "Oh" as much as he liked; but he (Mr. Healy) thought the citizens of Limerick were not entitled to pay for the guardianship of such women as Mr. Clifford Lloyd surrounded himself with. Looking at the facts, be was entitled to say that Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and not the citizens, was the main and sole cause of the unfortunate state of things which had arisen in the City of Limerick.
    MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYsaid, this was the second time the name of Limerick had been a thorn in the side of an English Government, and a disgrace to an English Ministry. The first occasion was a case in which the English Government broke its promise, and it was only reasonable for Irishmen to expect that an English Government would break its promise. The present case, however, was a case of one of the worst forms of human despotism—namely, parochial despotism. Irish Members had listened with some interest to the speech of the Chief Secretary, which, for fear of being un-Parliamentary if he used a stronger expression, he would call an indifferent speech. The Chief Secretary was directly responsible for the present condition of things in Limerick. It was during his administration, and shortly after he had succeeded to Office, that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was appointed to Limerick. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was one of the greatest curses inflicted upon Ireland since the unfortunate Act of Union. There was, as far as he knew, only one curse greater, and that was the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who had succeeded Lord Castlereagh in the affections of the
    1672
    Irish people. Mr. Clifford Lloyd, however, had succeeded Major Sirr in the affections of the Irish people; and, having been appointed by the present Chief Secretary, it was to the right hon. Gentleman they looked for some explanation of his extraordinary career. His hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had made some singularly happy citations from the work of the present Chief Secretary. No one in that House could admire more than he (Mr. J. H. M'Carthy) did the literary genius of the Chief Secretary. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was one of the most remarkable literary men of the time. His Life of Charles James Fox was worthy of that uncle he admired so much, and whose biography he had so eloquently written. His Cawnpore was one of the most valuable and the most beautiful contributions that had been made to modern historical literature. But he (Mr. J. H. M'Carthy) was not thereby bound to admire the position the right hon. Gentleman occupied as a politician. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had mistaken his vocation. The Chief Secretary was purely a man of letters. As a man of letters he was eminent and charming; but in political affairs he was hopelessly out of place. If not so unsuccessful in his administration generally as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), in the appointment of Mr. Clifford Lloyd he was as unfortunate as ever his Predecessor was. He (Mr. J. H. M'Carthy) hoped the Corporation of Limerick, much as they might admire the Chief Secretary as a literary man, would regard him as a politician with the same indifference that he did, and that they would toll him to "call again" when he came with this insufferable demand for this unjustifiable and unwarranted tax. He should like, as far as he could, to encourage the Corporation of Limerick to fight this matter out, and invite the Chief Secretary to "call again" as often as he liked. He thanked the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) for the brilliant and eloquent help he had given to the Irish Party; and he would appeal to the noble Lord, as one of the few Members of that House belonging to either of the two great Parties who really had a future before him, when the time came for him to administer Irish affairs, to bear in

    1673
    mind the aid he had lent that night to the exposure of an Irish grievance, and the defence he had made of Irish liberty.
    MR. HARRINGTONasked why it was that the recommendation of the Mayor and Corporation of Limerick was to have more weight with him and the Lord Lieutenant at the present time than during the last three or four years they had been agitating this question? The position taken up was simply this—that the right hon. Gentleman, and the Lord Lieutenant, and a gentleman of infamous memory in Ireland—Mr. Clifford Lloyd—were the only men who could truly judge the requirements of the City of Limerick for the preservation of the peace of the City. A number of petty cases had been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman to prove that from the advent of Mr. Clifford Lloyd in Limerick various slight disturbances took place in the City; but the right hon. Gentleman forgot to state that the disturbances commenced with collisions between the townspeople and a number of artillerymen who were brought into the City who insulted the citizens. The policemen took part with the soldiers; and the fact that they fired upon an unarmed and defenceless people accounted for the ill-feeling which had been created and the disturbances which followed. The disturbances, however, were only of a trivial character. The County Court Judges and the Judges of Assize invariably, during the period of which the Chief Secretary had spoken, had complimented the citizens of Limerick upon the peaceful character of their proceedings. The Judges of Assize—and they all knew how anxious the Judges were to furnish the Chief Secretary with an opportunity for stigmatizing the people of Ireland whenever he wanted an opportunity—had invariably complimented the citizens upon the order and peace that were preserved in the City. The petty cases the right hon. Gentleman had quoted as a justification for the imposition of this iniquitous tax on the people might well suggest to the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House why there had been the introduction of a large force into a City that was perfectly peaceable and orderly, and in which the people were steadily endeavouring to improve their own position. The object was to
    1674
    create disturbance and agitation, and the question was whether this was not the very thing which produced the disturbances and the state of things to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. They all knew that the force was gathered together for the protection of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and that his presence there was the origin of the agitation. He would therefore put it to the House whether it was not possible that some of the crimes and midnight outrages in Limerick might have been invented or directly incited by the police for the purpose of founding charges to support their agitation for increased pay and the improvement of their position? They all knew that the agitation thus got up was of so formidable a character that the Government had actually to cave in and consent to improve the position of the Constabulary. The right hon. Gentleman had wound up his speech in reply to the observation of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), as to what were the practical means he intended to take to collect the tax, by stating that that was a question for the Government themselves. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was not a question reserved for him alone, and that it was not a question which the citizens of Limerick alone would have to face; but the Irish Members who represented the Irish people would also have to face it, and by every means left them among the few legitimate means which his régime of terror had left in Ireland, it was his duty to advise the people in the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself—
    "To draw the sword, and that they would be cravens if they left it in the scabbard."
    In addition to many debts of gratitude the Irish people owed to his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), they owed to him their thanks for furnishing the people of Limerick with that which would be their war cry during their contest with the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. It was not the last they would hear of the expression which his hon. Friend had discovered in studying the works of the right hon. Gentleman, and that in very numerous instances the tax collector would be told to "call again." The right hon. Gentleman would find that if he engaged in a conflict with the people he would be worsted. What

    1675
    ordinary means were there open to the right hon. Gentleman? How could he force the Corporation to sign warrants for the collection of the tax? And did he intend to send the Corporation to prison if they refused to sign them? The citizens of Limerick had given ample evidence in the past of their readiness to resist an unjust and iniquitous imposition. They had not been afraid of walking into the right hon. Gentleman's chains. What were the few instances the right hon. Gentleman had quoted in support of his assertion as to the disturbed state of the City? One was the case in which three policemen, endeavouring to rescue a man, were assaulted by a mob of roughs. Those were things which occurred every day in the English towns; and if they occurred daily and hourly in towns that were governed by the people themselves, how much more likely were they to occur when the police were in absolute authority over the people, and the people were the serfs instead of the masters? What was the state of the country during the time these disturbances in Limerick were taking place? Why, there were absolutely a dozen people in gaol awaiting trial under the Prevention of Crime Act. Every day the citizens of Limerick saw men dragged from their homes whom they knew to be as peaceful and as law-abiding as the right hon. Gentleman himself, and whose character stood much higher than his was ever likely to stand; and because, in a few cases, sympathy had been manifested with the citizens of Limerick against the oppression to which they had been subjected, they were to be burdened with this heavy tax. There was one portion of the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to which the Chief Secretary did not attempt to make a reply. Some hon. Gentlemen had referred that night to the special genius of the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman did claim any special genius it was a knack of overlooking the strength of his opponents' case. The argument to which the right hon. Gentleman had not replied was that the force which had been drafted into Limerick had been entrusted with the preservation of law and order, not in connection with the City of Limerick, but with the whole Province of Ulster. Mr. Clifford
    1676
    Lloyd was placed in charge of Londonderry and Ulster generally, and while he had distinct duties to perform in connection with those counties, especially in connection with the rural districts, he had directed his attention to the citizens of Limerick, because he chose to take up his abode in that town. He was attended by a most magnificent retinue of policemen; he surrounded himself with military and police wherever he went; and he brought about a simple reign of terror. So essential was the preservation of Mr. Clifford Lloyd considered to be, that a confidential Circular was issued by the County Inspector of Clare, stating that if any man appeared before the police under suspicious circumstances they were not to wait and challenge him, but to shoot him down. The citizens of Limerick were now called upon to pay an enormous tax for the state of things which this tyrant had brought about during his term of office—this bosom friend of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary, and this evil adviser of the Government. It was not necessary to refer to the career of Mr. Clifford Lloyd in Egypt. As soon as he was brought sufficiently forward, and they were able to focus their attention upon his acts, evidence was soon forthcoming that, instead of being a blessing, he was a curse and a trouble. He would conclude by assuring the right hon. Gentleman that when he said it was his duty to extort this tax, and his business to levy it, he did not know the magnitude of the task he was undertaking. If he seriously supposed that he could reduce the citizens of Limerick to the position of cringing before him, or tamely knuckling to his behests, he was very much mistaken; and he would find, if he persisted in entering into a quarrel with them, that he would only come off second best, with ignominy and disgrace. This had now become a matter of principle with the Corporation and citizens of Limerick, who felt the honour of their town at stake, and neither fine or imprisonment would induce them to give way, although the matter at issue was only the collection of a miserable sum of £2,000 or £3,000. The citizens of Limerick were prepared to act in the same spirit as that which had animated their forefathers.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he rose to express a hope that the Corporation

    1677
    of Limerick would see their way to continue the struggle to the bitter end. He was sure they had law on their side, as well as justice; they had been well advised, and must succeed. But even if they had not technical law on their side, he should urge them to persevere, if only in the hope that they might see a new development of Liberal government in Ireland by the imprisonment of an entire Corporation. However great a man the Chief Secretary was, he would find it difficult to draw an indictment against a whole municipality. He should be very glad to see the Chief Secretary employing his ingenious mind in the task of framing an indictment for consigning to prison a whole Corporation. That would be so interesting and instructive as an illustration of Liberal government in Ireland that it would secure the attention of the whole civilized world, and would well become a Government who went about lecturing other Governments, like those of Russia and Austria, as to their way of keeping their people in subjection. When it was decided to imprison an entire Corporation, representing the whole of the inhabitants of a town, he wished the right hon. Gentleman no worse fate than to be the instrument for the development of the new departure. He would like his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) to study the statement of the Limerick Corporation, and lay it before the great and populous town he represented. He would be glad if every English Member would take the statement to heart, and ask himself what would be his feeling if an English community, originally peaceable and capable of well governing themselves, were to find their Representatives consigned to prison for the misdeeds of some person who had been called in to rule over them? He would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary of an anecdote, with which he was, no doubt, familiar. There was a ruler in Ireland before his time—a man of culture also—Lord Carteret, afterwards Lord Granville. Lord Carteret was sent over to govern the country, and on his arrival he was met by Dean Swift, who asked him, with his usual good humoured roughness—"What do you want here? You are a man of intelligence and education. What, then, do you want here? Let them send you back again, and
    1678
    leave us our boobies and blockheads." That was what they wanted — they wanted a man who had never written books from which citations could be made against himself and his Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had never, as far as he knew, written a book, or if he had, most certainly nobody had ever read it. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary had, however, written books, which people read, and were able to quote from against himself. They were able to find in his own writings the strongest condemnation of his own system of government. Therefore, speaking as a humble brother in the same profession of literature, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to forsake his present unsuitable occupation, and to give the Irish people their boobies and blockheads back again.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, he thought that some notice might have been taken, by the Treasury Bench, of the remarks they had listened to for the last hour-and-a-half. The case of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would surprise nobody in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said the remission of the police tax in Limerick would set a bad example to the rest of Ireland. He thought the Corporation of Limerick, on the contrary, were to be congratulated on having set an admirable example to the rest of the Irish people by the manful resistance they had made to the tax, and he thought the conclusion to be drawn from the debate would be that they had only to carry their resistance just a little further. No English official ever dreamt of redressing a wrong in Ireland until the people were goaded to the very verge of revolution. The Corporation of Limerick might have been going on for years passing resolutions which would have only tilled Earl Spencer's waste-paper basket, without securing the slightest attention to their case. It was the old, old story. The wrong was there; it could not be denied; but they must wait until the people drew the sword and refused to replace it in the scabbard before the English Government would give redress. He advised the people of Limerick to follow the example which had been set in the Reform agitation, and which, was re-

    1679
    ferred to in the works of the Chief Secretary, and that they would tell the tax collector to "call again." If the Corporation of a great English city were placed in the position of Limerick, what would they do? They would at once take the action which the Corporation of Limerick had been driven to take, and they would brave the terrors with which they were threatened by the Treasury Bench, and prefer to go to gaol rather than pay so odious a tax. In such a case would any English Secretary stand up in that House, and say that surrender or compromise was impossible? Was what they were doing calculated to make the people of Limerick enamoured of English rule? They had a city to all intents and purposes as orderly as any village in the rural districts in ordinary times. It had been complimented by the Judges upon its peaceful and orderly character, and at a time when the country all around was seething with excitement. And this was the reward the people of Limerick got for their tranquillity. The right hon. Gentleman had laid before the House a budget of trumpery assaults upon the police, and stone-throwing matches that might have been disposed of in the course of half-an-hour by an ordinary police magistrate. The right hon. Gentleman gave those statistics—supplied very likely by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, or by somebody who had that gentleman's records in his possession—as an excuse for keeping up the present feeling of oppression and heart-burning among the people of Limerick. He was by no means satisfied that all the ill-feeling had not been created by the police themselves, who had been brought into Limerick not to put down the turbulence of the citizens, but to create disturbances. He would say more than that—namely, that the principal and most dangerous disturbance which had occurred in Limerick for years past was the police strike directly provoked by the action of the Government. There could not have been an instance of more poetic vengeance than that of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's Praetorian Guards falling out among themselves, and it was then that one of the greatest dangers to English rule occurred in Ireland. Beyond all doubt the ill-feeling which had been brought about and kept up in Limerick was simply that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had
    1680
    pitched his head-quarters there, and brought trouble and disturbance with him as he had done everywhere else. Could the right hon. Gentleman show any instance in which anything had been really accomplished by the police in the interests of the preservation of peace and order in that City? Instead of gaining respect for the law the police had succeeded in implanting in the minds of the people hatred and detestation of the law. They had even sot the minds of the magistrates against them, and had aroused a spirit of resistance which induced the Corporation to express their readiness to go to gaol rather than impose upon the people 1s. of this tax; and not only in Limerick, but throughout the whole of Ireland, things had been a great deal worse than they were before. From one point of view nothing could be better than the attitude the right hon. Gentleman had taken up that night. He had done just what the enemies of English rule would like to see — he had aroused a feeling that justice was not to be obtained nor redress to be had from Her Majesty's Government. All he (Mr. O'Brien) could say was, that he had perfect confidence, if the right hon. Gentleman carried on the struggle to the bitter end, he would find that eventually the people would triumph, because their cause was just. Whatever the action of the right hon. Gentleman might be in that House, the people of Limerick would, after they heard the right hon. Gentleman's statement, adopt the course which had been recommended to them, and tell the tax collector to "call again."
    MR. GRAYsaid, that some time ago, in consequence of a distinction which Mr. Justice Lawson had thought it desirable to confer upon him, the citizens of Limerick did him the honour of granting him the freedom of their City. At that time he was very proud of the distinction; but he must certainly say that he was still more proud of it now that the citizens had made this most courageous and proper resistance to as iniquitous an impost as was ever placed upon a free people. He believed the citizens of Limerick were determined to persevere to the last. He had no doubt they would be successful, and that their names would live long in the history of Ireland, as Hampden's did in English

    1681
    history for the resistance he made to ship money. He did not profess to be in a position to criticize the literary capacity of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, nor would he venture to pronounce an opinion upon his capacity as a statesman. But if there was any quality which struck him as remarkable in the right hon. Gentleman it was that he recognized, sometimes, at least, what was practicable and what was not practicable, and he could see what was possible and what was impossible in his position as Irish Secretary. Now, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman realized that the position which the Corporation of Limerick had taken up was one from which they would withdraw? It was absolutely impossible for them to withdraw. He had not gathered from the right hon. Gentleman any information as to how he intended to proceed in his attempt to enforce the payment of the tax. He was aware that many underhand attempts had been made by the emissaries of the Government to coerce the Limerick Corporation and induce them to submit quietly to the tax. All kinds of rumours of what the Government would do if the Corporation dared to resist the order of the Executive had been circulated. Well, he believed that all that kind of thing was mere "bunkum," full of sound and fury, but signifying absolutely nothing. Whether the tax was an anomaly or not it was a most iniquitous and unjust impost; and the Representatives of the citizens of Limerick would be wanting in their plain and obvious duty if they did not offer a most determined resistance to it. Already serious injury had been done to Limerick by the action of the Government in this matter. From the wealthiest citizen down to the poorest factory girl there was not one who had not suffered by it owing to its effect upon the trade and commerce of the place. Were, then, the Government to punish the citizens further by levying a tax amounting to 1s. in the pound for their own default and blunders? If the right hon. Gentleman had really said the last word on this matter, they were entitled to ask how he intended to proceed? The Habeas Corpus Act was in force, and the right hon. Gentleman could not clap the Corporation into prison without assigning a reason, and without their having committed a specific crime. What
    1682
    was the crime? They simply refused to vote the money. Was that a crime? They might take a horse to the water, but they could not compel it to drink. If the Corporation refused to vote, was that a crime? The right hon. Gentleman might put the Corporation into gaol; but he defied him, by the exercise of any ingenuity, to make them say "aye," when they were determined to say "no." They took the attitude of peaceable, passive resistance. They had the support of the whole of Ireland in that resistance. They had the support of the whole of the Irish Members; and the right hon. Gentleman might as well remit the tax at once, because he had no power to enforce it. He could not send down his own officers to collect the tax. What, then, did he propose to do? What member of the Corporation was he going to punish, because he would not levy the tax? Suppose the members of the Corporation chose not to attend the meetings, would that be a crime, and would they be punished for not attending? Suppose some of them were sick, were they to be punished for that? Suppose they failed to form a quorum, and some of them took a holiday trip, were they to be sent to prison for that? The thing was absurd. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Corporation were not going to be terrorized over in this matter, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine they might be, by big words. Indeed, the debate in the House that night had settled the matter once for all. He saw the Prime Minister in his place, and he would make an appeal to him. Would the Prime Minister himself look into the circumstances of this extraordinary case, and see whether it was either good policy or common justice to involve the country in the turmoil and disturbance which must ensue from an abortive attempt on the part of the Irish Executive to levy this tax? Every Member of the Government, even the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, must know that this tax was unjust. They might have judged Mr. Clifford Lloyd by the course he had followed in Limerick. They had sent him to Egypt, and he attempted the same policy; but the Fellaheen of Egypt were not to be tyrannized over and taxed simply because Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been placed over them. He had been.

    1683
    speedily removed from Cairo on account of his misdeeds, and because he had insulted every person with whom he came into contact, from the Khedive down to the humblest Egyptian citizen. They had taken him away from Ireland because they could no longer keep him there; but they now proposed to make the citizens of Limerick pay a tax of 1s. in the pound simply from a mistake of the Irish Office in sending Mr. Clifford Lloyd to tyrannize over them. Such a thing was not to be heard of. Was it not enough that Mr. Clifford Lloyd should insult every person in Limerick, without taxing the citizens in addition? The Corporation of Limerick, in this matter, had right and justice on their side. With right on their side they were bound to win, and the sooner the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister recognized that fact the better it would be for his Government in Ireland.
    MR. BARRYsaid, he was exceedingly reluctant, at that late hour, to take part in the discussion; but he was slow to believe that, after the case which had been represented on that side of the House in favour of a compromise, the Government had said the last word in the matter. It must be clear to any impartial mind that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was making his defence of the Government he had an extremely weak case, and he must have felt how extremely weak that case was. It must be remembered that the matter was surrounded in a maze of legal doubt and uncertainty. The position taken by the Corporation of Limerick, from the point of view adopted by the Irish Members, was absolutely legal; and if the Government persisted in entering upon a struggle with the Corporation, it would be taken up by other Bodies in Ireland, and would become a grave matter indeed. He thought the Government ought to be anxious to wipe out and obliterate the odious recollections of the last two years of the tyrannical rule of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. What would happen if this struggle were fought out to the bitter end? The memory of all that had passed during the last few years would certainly be revived, and the feeling of exasperation and bitterness at the action of the Government would be intensified. There was another point which had been some-what
    1684
    overlooked during the debate—namely, that when this extra police force was supposed to be necessary in Limerick, and for which an extra tax was now sought to be raised, both the Court of Quarter Sessions and the Spring Assizes, and even the Court of Petty Sessions, reported that in that part of Ireland crime was at a very low ebb indeed. If there was any reliance to be placed on such statements, the declaration of the Judges and the Magistrates went clearly to show that the advent of Mr. Clifford Lloyd brought about disturbances, and placed the people of Limerick in an absolutely false position. He wished to support the appeal which had been made to the right hon. Gentleman in favour of a compromise. The Government might carry out this struggle with the Corporation of Limerick to the bitter end; but was the game worth the candle? He could understand it if there were a question of principle involved. The right hon. Gentleman might then stand to his guns; but no question of principle was involved, and the whole matter was loft in doubt and uncertainty. If ever there was a case in which a compromise might be adopted, it was this; and in the interests of peace and order he urged upon the right hon. Gentleman not to let the dispute go forward in order that it might be fought out. Legal questions had been raised in the course of the debate, and as the case seemed to be a very strong one, he thought the Solicitor General for Ireland ought to favour the House with his opinion upon it. Half-a-dozen Members on that side of the House had declared their doubts as to the legal position of the matter. Why, then, did not the hon. and learned Gentleman get up and explain the legal position of the Government, telling them what the Government were going to do, and how they proposed to get the money? He thought it would be unfair to the people of Limerick if the Law Advisers of the Government remained silent and allowed the question to remain in doubt.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the hon. Member had asked a question as to the legal position of the Government, and he thought it right to say that the legal position of the Government in the matter was perfectly clear. As to the general policy of the ultimate course to

    1685
    be pursued, it was for the Irish Executive to decide; but there was no doubt as to the legal aspect of the case. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and other hon. Members had argued that a portion of this tax was in a different position from the rest—namely, that portion of it which had been refused by the Corporation before the month of May, 1882. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had referred to the Act of William IV., which gave certain power to the magistrates. The legal position of the Government rested upon that Act, and upon a subsequent Act—the 11 & 12 Vict., c. 72, which empowered the Lord Lieutenant from time to time to draft into any town in the country any force he might consider necessary. It was under that power, and not under the terms of any Proclamation, that the payment of the earlier portion of the tax became due; because by that statute all the powers created under the earlier Act in respect of taxes for the maintenance of the police were continued. Therefore that portion of the tax which accrued up to the end of May, 1882, was legal under the Act of Victoria; and no lawyer would venture to contradict that assertion; no lawyer could entertain a doubt that, having regard to the legislation on this subject, it became the binding duty of the Corporation themselves to discharge the liability. A presentment was made, and the presentment itself had such binding force that it was presumed to be legal until it was quashed. More than that, the Government had proceeded by way of mandamus, in the Court of Queen's Bench; and not only did the Government succeed, but the Corporation, by their solicitor, said they did not intend to defend the case. Therefore, the case was absolutely undefended, and the legal right of the Government was completely established. That was the only question he would deal with; and he contended that the legal position of the Government was absolutely established, and that no legal answer to the claim existed.
    MR. SEXTONasked if it was not the fact that as the Town Council had met as a Presentment Sessions, and had refused to pass the sums of money asked for, the Government was bound to give six months' notice to the Corpo-
    1686
    ration. He wished to know if they had ever served that notice?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that if the hon. Gentleman had information to that effect he was probably right. It was a point of practice with which he was not acquainted; but, assuming that it was as the hon. Gentleman had said, still, if this presentment was made once, it would be presumed by every Court of Law that everything necessary to give validity to the presentment had been done. It was said that there was an accumulated arrear. But it hardly lay in the mouth of those who, for six or seven half-years, had made legal default, to urge that as a reason against the claim. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) urged that the claim might be rightly resisted, because it was a debt, and the Government had passed an Arrears Act. But in that case the debt ceased to be a debt, having been dealt with by the law; and there was no analogy between the two cases. The position which the noble Lord assumed was a strange one, after a mandamus had been issued, and after the highest Court of the Realm had decided that there was no answer to the claim. He had been asked to point out how the debt was to be enforced.
    MR. HEALY: Tell the tax collector to "call again."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he did not admit that it was the duty of a Member of the Government to state at full length all the remedies they might put in force. He had no doubt that the law could be made good, and that the legal position of the Government was perfectly tenable.
    MR. GORSTsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had promised that he would only deal with the legal aspects of the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not, however, fulfilled that promise, because he had not dealt with the legal aspects of the case at all. He accepted, as far as it went, the law laid down by the hon. and learned Solicitor General; but he wished to deal also with the justice of the case. Assuming that the hon. and learned Gentleman was right that the expense of the extra police force sent into Limerick before the City was proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant could be

    1687
    legally recovered from the citizens, it was a very strong power, and one which ought to be used with great discretion and circumspection. It had not been found necessary to proclaim the City of Limerick until the 30th of May, 1882; but the Government had been quartering these extra police upon the City since the 1st of October, 1881. It was a very strange power to be given by law. He accepted the law of the hon. and learned Solicitor General; he did not dispute that the tax was perfectly legal, and that the citizens of Limerick were bound to obey it. Who were bound to obey it? Surely those who were bound to obey it were the citizens of Limerick who were existing at the time, and it ought to have been levied on the ratepayers who were on the rate-book in 1882. What was it, however, that the Government were now seeking to do? They were seeking to levy the rate on persons who were the present ratepayers of the City of Limerick, many of whom had probably gone to live in the City since the summer of 1882. The Solicitor General said it did not lie in the mouths of those who refused to pay it in 1882 to refuse to pay it now; but it did lie in the mouths of those who were not citizens in 1882, and who, by the action of the Government, had had an unjust tax imposed on them. He dared say it might be legal; he did not dispute that it was perfectly legal; he presumed the Courts would decide so; and it would not be respectful for the House of Commons to upset the decision of the Courts; but, although it might be legal to impose the tax, it was certainly not what was known as common justice to do it. Surely, in the case of Ireland, it was not necessary for the Government, at the present moment, to stand on their strict legal right, but they ought to act in accordance with the dictates of common justice and equity; and he appealed to them whether it was in accordance with common justice and equity to make the ratepayers of Limerick of the present day pay a tax which ought to have been paid by the ratepayers of 1882, but which were not paid because the Government did not take the necessary steps to enforce payment. Although the Solicitor General contended that the Government was the people, and although he (Mr. Gorst) did not dispute the technicalities of the law, was it right to insist upon levying these arrears
    1688
    in a manner that was opposed to all the principles of natural justice? So much for the legal argument. The Solicitor General had gone out of his way to misunderstand and misconstrue the argument of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) as to the Arrears Act. The argument was a very good one, and was addressed to the Government themselves. The Government, for the sake of public policy, and for reasons he, for one, had always appreciated, had thought fit to pass a law through Parliament which relieved tenants who legally owed certain sums of money to their landlords from the obligation or necessity of paying them. No doubt, those arrears were just as much the property of the landlords as the arrears in the case of the Limerick police tax were the property of the Government; and the only ground on which they had been remitted was that of high public policy. The noble Lord said that the Government had called on the landlords to forego their legal rights on the ground of high public policy, and argued that they ought themselves to follow the same rule. There were certain sums, according to the strict letter of the law, due to the Government. He had not touched upon the question of policy or the legal point; he had confined himself to the bare question of justice, considering the lapse of time since the arrears were incurred, and upon whom the obligations would rest.
    MR. KENNYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) remarked, at the opening of his speech, that he would not go into the legal position of the question as discussed by the Chief Secretary; but the hon. and learned Member had discussed a point arising out of the legal argument which was of great importance—namely, whether the present ratepayers of the City of Limerick were liable for the debts, assuming them to be debts, of their predecessors? He questioned very much whether any old Statute of William IV. would make men responsible for debts due years before, and for which they were in no respect, directly or indirectly, liable. Now, the Chief Secretary had asked, why did not the Corporation of Limerick enter an appearance in the Court of Queen's Bench against this mandamus? What would have been the value of that appearance?

    1689
    Did any person believe that the fact of the Corporation of Limerick entering an appearance in a Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Lawson or Chief Justice May, would be anything more than a farce? The Court had not so much as read the affidavits of the Town Council, affidavits that set forth clearly the case of the Corporation of Limerick; and when Judges disregarded these and refused to inquire even into the manuscripts before them, but with a light heart granted a mandamus, what would be the special value of the Corporation going to the expense of counsel and appearing in a Court, the verdict of which would practically be known beforehand? He did not believe that the law as it existed could enforce the payment of these debts; and, furthermore, he was distinctly of opinion that it was the duty of the Corporation of Limerick, a duty they owed to their fellow-citizens and the people of Ireland, to resist the imposition of a most unjust and iniquitous tax. He was not in favour of the recommendation of his hon. Friend who sat near him as to the desirability of effecting a compromise—he believed there was no room for a compromise; it should be war to the knife right out, and he believed the members of the Corporation of Limerick would be great fools if they volunteered to pay 1d. of this alleged debt; in his opinion they owed nothing, and should resist the imposition, which was unjust. These demands, these charges, were made in the first instance for personal attendants, practically, upon Mr. Clifford Lloyd. Everyone knew that, wherever this gentleman went, whether in Limerick or in Cairo, he must have a body-guard around him and his friends, male and female. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was magistrate for Clare, while he made Limerick his head-quarters; he drafted a number of police into the place, and the police knew that, so long as they had Mr. Clifford Lloyd at their head, they could do as they liked; and they got drunk, they created disturbances, and startled quiet citizens. Wherever Mr. Clifford Lloyd went he brought his gang of policemen with him. When he went to Ennis he had 40 policemen with him, and there they created disturbances among the inhabitants. So also when he went to Tulla, and to a number of places in Clare and Limerick. Were
    1690
    these small towns to be placed in the same position as the City of Limerick for the special protection of Mr. Clifford Lloyd? He must say it would be a most disastrous thing, in his opinion, if the Corporation of Limerick did not hold out to the end. Limerick had successfully resisted a siege, and could again if necessary. It would be monstrous to think that the Corporation had any just or fair right to impose this unjust tax on the present ratepayers, knowing, as it was known, that the present ratepayers were in no respect responsible for the debts of their predecessors. He sincerely trusted, and hoped with some confidence, that the Corporation and citizens of Limerick would show a firm front, no matter what force was brought against them. No matter what force those who were anxious to recoup themselves for a rash expenditure would bring against them, let them show a strong resistance and the Government would find that in the endeavour to collect this tax they would be only throwing good money after bad.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 17: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 168.)

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

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £32,134, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of making a few remarks in regard to a subject upon which he had asked a Question—namely, the care of tapestries at Hampton Court. It appeared there was some difficulty with regard to ar-

    1691
    riving at a conclusion as to whose care they were under, whether of the Lord Lord Chamberlain or of the First Commissioner of Works, and on this particular subject he wished to make a few remarks. He asked a short time ago if some valuable tapestries at Hampton Court were to be restored, and the First Commissioner said the Lord Chamberlain had it under his consideration. He asked again this year—
    MR. SHAWLEFEVRErose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member could open this question? He had explained that the tapestries were not under the charge of the First Commissioner; they were the property of the Queen, and were not included in this Vote or any Vote in connection with the Office.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERCHELL): If the care of the tapestries to which the hon. Member alludes is not included in this Vote—if it does not come within the duties of those whose salaries are included in the Vote—the hon. Member is totally out of Order in referring to them.
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, he thought it came under the Vote in question. There was a charge for the custodians of Hampton Court, who were paid through the First Commissioner. On that account he called attention to the subject. Moreover, he was told, Hampton Court was maintained at the expense of the public. It was very difficult to draw a conclusion as to whether the tapestries—
    THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): Hampton Court is dealt with under Class I. already passed by the House. It is not in this Vote.
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, he begged to move a reduction of the Vote for the expenses of First Commissioner by £1,000. On this subject—
    THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): That is not in Order, for the tapestries not being under the charge of the First Commissioner, no question can be raised on that account for a reduction of the Vote.
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, he thought he was in Order in moving a reduction of the Vote in consideration that the tapestries were part of the decoration of the building in which they were, and that they were not properly looked after by the First Commissioner.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): It being no part of the duty of the First Commissioner to look after the tapestries, because they are not public property, it will not be in Order to deal with the subject of tapestries under this Vote.
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, might he be allowed to show his case? He could prove that when the fire took place at Hampton Court last year certain tapestries were taken down and put up again by the First Commissioner of Works. The Secretary of the First Commissioner gave orders to put them up in a rotten state. He gave orders that they should be put up permanently; and, therefore, he (Mr. Guest) contended the tapestries were under the care of the Office of Works. If the First Commissioner put them up they were as much under his control as any part of the Palace. It would be difficult to draw a line between what part of the contents was under the control of the First Commissioner and what part was not. The furniture was under his control, and how was a line drawn at tapestry? He contended the care of the latter did come under the Vote, and he moved a reduction of the salary of the First Commissioner on consideration that the contents of Hampton Court, which he contended was national property—virtually national property—were not properly attended to.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): Inasmuch as these tapestries are not national property, and are not under the control of the First Commissioners of Works, whatever may be said about the building, and the portion dealt with under Class I., the hon. Member is not in Order in discussing the subject.
    MR. SEXTONmoved that Progress be reported, in order that information upon this subject might be given to the Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, he should support that Motion, because he thought it was desirable that the Committee should have some information as to whose authority these valuable possessions were under—whether they were

    1693
    under the control of the Lord Chamberlain or the First Commissioner of Works. There was a difference of opinion on the matter, and it was almost impossible for the Committee to obtain any actual information; and meanwhile these valuable tapestries were going to decay.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): The hon. Member cannot discuss this question on the Motion to report Progress.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he thought there was something in what the hon. Member had said. The First Commissioner stated after the fire occurred that he was at the Palace, and gave orders there. He recollected well the interest the right hon. Gentleman took in the whole matter, and, therefore, it was clear there was a strong conflict of opinion upon the subject of authority; but at that rate now he thought it would be better not to proceed with these Estimates. He had a long speech to make that night; even if he had to speak at 3 o'clock he intended to make it; and he did not think it was fair to the Committee to take these important questions at that hour. He should support the Motion, and he thought it would be only fair to the Committee if, after the long Sittings there had been lately, the consideration of these Estimates was postponed.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not think a postponement was necessary. It was true that he had to go down to Hampton Court Palace and take precautions; but the tapestries were not national property. They belonged to the Queen, and were under the charge of the Lord Chamberlain.
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTasked whether it was not the fact that the officers of the First Commissioner had ordered the tapestries, when they were much damaged by water, to be dried and re-hung in the Palace last year?
    THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): The hon. Member cannot discuss this matter on the Motion to report Progress.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought that if a point of Order had not been raised by the First Commissioner this Motion would not have been made, and the time of the Committee would not have been wasted. The hon. Member was, perhaps, technically out of Order; but if he had been allowed three or four
    1694
    minutes to make his little complaint the whole thing would have been over. There would be a Division, and then how would the First Commissioner be any better off? He should support the Motion, and he would submit that if time was to be saved, and Motions were not to be provoked, the Members of the Treasury Bench should refrain from provoking them.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsuggested that this Vote should be postponed, and the Motion to report Progress be withdrawn.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the First Commissioner had been very wrong in raising the point of Order.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): The hon. and learned Member cannot discuss that point upon this Motion.
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, the whole difficulty might be settled if the First Commissioner would say where the limit was drawn between the authority of the First Commissioner and of the Lord Chamberlain with regard to the contents of Hampton Court Palace.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): That question would in itself be quite in Order; but it cannot be discussed on the Motion to report Progress. If that Motion is disposed of the question will be in Order.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he hoped the First Commissioner would postpone this Vote.
    MR. JUSTIN HUNTLYM'CARTHYsaid, he believed that the subjects of some of the tapestries in Hampton Court Palace were taken from the "Triumphs" of Petrarch. As one of the greatest admirers of Petrarch living, he should have great pleasure in supporting the Motion.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 50: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 169.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Warton.)
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he should be happy to explain the difference between the First Commissioner of Works and the Lord Chamberlain. The First Commissioner was responsible for

    1695
    all the buildings of the Palace, and the maintenance of the buildings; but the pictures and tapestry and other things of that kind were in the charge of the Lord Chamberlain. He therefore had no concern in the tapestries, and he had no responsibility for the pictures—they were solely under the charge of the Lord Chamberlain. They could be removed from Hampton Court to any other Palace. It was true that when they were damaged by the fire the tapestries were redried and put up again. The matter was under the consideration of the Lord Chamberlain. The responsibility did not rest with him (Mr. Shaw Lefevre).
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) for the information he had received from him. He only drew attention to the matter because he considered it of importance, and because he believed that the question properly arose in connection with the Office of the First Commissioner of Works. There could be no doubt that all the tapestries at Hampton Court, unless properly examined and repaired, would be desperately damaged. They were at present in a very bad state, and now, whilst they, were being put up and refastened, they could be put in repair with very little trouble. Of course it required a person with some knowledge of the needle to remedy the defects. He would not proceed further with the matter at the present time.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he should like to ask the First Commissioner of Works a question. He understood that the Government had had occasion to dismiss a certain set of clerks in consequence of malpractices—that the Government had discovered that a whole series of peculations had been going on for many years, and he was informed that the First Commissioner of Works had made a change in the personnel of the Furniture Department. If, however, the change was such as had been described to him he certainly believed that it would lead to as many malpractices as had occurred before. He was informed that the arrangement was that, instead of going straight to the manufacturer for the purchase of articles of furniture, the Go-
    1696
    vernment went to the merchant. Why should that be the case in the Furnishing Department any more than it was in any of the other great spending Departments of the State? He could not see why an immense expenditure of hundreds of thousands a-year should be conducted through the merchants of London when they could deal straight with the manufacturers. He wished to know whether it really was the case that they dealt with the merchants as he understood it? The argument of the Department was that all these goods required to be fitted; but why could they not buy from the manufacturer, and get servants of their own to do the fitting? The persons who hitherto had had temptation placed before them had fallen into it; and, that being the case, he could not see why they should continue the system of placing temptation before anyone. They could not be blind to the fact that when they went into the City and made contracts with merchants they were dealing with people who had many opportunities of "getting at" the officials. Was it the case that, in spite of the reform brought about by the right hon. Gentleman in one respect, there were still defects in other respects?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was true that some time ago he had discovered that inferior linoleum was being supplied to the Department. In consequence of that, he initiated an inquiry which resulted in the dismissal of these officials and the reorganization of the Department. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was not quite correct in what he said as to the practice resulting from that change. The hon. Gentleman had said they could go direct to the manufacturers and obtain their supply of linoleum from them; but that was not the case.
    MR. HEALY: I was not referring to one article, but to all articles.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, with regard to this special article, the manufacturer could not supply it direct to the Government. The method practised in the particular, article was such that the manufacturer could not supply direct to the Government. It could only be bought through an agent. Several gentlemen tendered—all agents of manufacturers—and the Government accepted the lowest. He had found that the system of adver

    1697
    tising for goods was not carried out to the extent to which it was represented to him to be the case. Since the change he had effected, he had directed that tenders should be applied for as openly as possible. In some cases only a limited number of persons were asked to tender; but that was in connection with special articles, where there was a very limited number to choose from. He had laid it down as a rule that, where it was possible, tenders should be invited; and he had not the slightest doubt but that in future it would be found that the system adopted would work to the public advantage.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that, as he understood it, the peculations had arisen in consequence of various articles being obtained through intermediaries in the City of London. He was under the impression that the articles obtained were got by these intermediate means, and not by direct means; and that it was this mode of obtaining goods which had led to the fall of the set of clerks.
    MR. CARINGTONsaid, he should like to know why these persons had been dismissed.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was not the case that the general practice was to obtain goods through agents. That was only the case with certain articles, like this linoleum manufactured by a special firm, where the firm did not supply goods directly to the public, but only through agents. With regard to the cause of the dismissals, these officers had been sent away for gross neglect of duty. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had not dismissed them for fraud; but for gross neglect of duty.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the last answer fully illustrated one of the faults of the present system. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works seemed to consider that it was necessary in obtaining linoleum that they should purchase one particular kind. Why was it necessary that one kind, and only that particular kind, should be purchased?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREremarked, that experience had shown that Staines's linoleum was the best article of the kind to use—in fact, that it was almost essential for the use of some Government Offices. It was the only article which could be used for the passages of those
    1698
    Departments where there was a great amount of traffic.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would now move to report Progress. They had had a great deal of work to do that night; and, seeing that the Government had thrown over a great many measures that blocked the way of the Estimates, there would, no doubt, be a great deal of time for the discussion of the various Votes in the remaining days of the Session, and therefore it was not essential that they should go on very late that night. They should consider the Estimates duly and properly. He moved to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he hoped that, before making that Motion, his hon. and learned Friend would at least allow the present Vote to be taken.
    MR. WARTON: Well, this Vote, and this Vote only.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that if they took only three Votes in the course of an evening, as they did yesterday, they could not expect the Prorogation to take place at a convenient period. He thought the Committee might very easily take this Vote and the next Vote to-night.
    MR. WARTON: Very well; take those two.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he saw China mentioned three or four times, and he wished to know whether the Board of Works were specially interested in China? It would be much better, he thought, that the Vote should appear under the head of Embassies.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that before an answer was given to the last question, he should like to have some clear understanding arrived at as to the system adopted in the Department. It was absurd to talk about this particular kind of linoleum, in regard to the purchase of which these officials had been discharged, being better than any other linoleum. It was well-known that that particular linoleum had been sent in to the Railway Companies for their approval with other kinds, and that it had been beaten in the market over and over

    1699
    again. He did not know why this kind should be preferred to another; and he should not be able to account for the preference given to it if, from his official experience, he was not aware that contracts were sometimes made in consequence of the personal influence of members of the staff.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he could show that that was not so, by pointing to the fact that he had been specially informed that this linoleum was almost necessary for certain public Departments. If the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would communicate to him his knowledge of the better kinds of linoleum, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would institute other inquiries and endeavour to get at the bottom of the matter. If the Government could find a better description of article than that they were using at present they would be very glad to adopt it.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Consult the Railway Companies.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The linoleum we use is considered necessary, especially in the Post Office, where there is a very large amount of traffic.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Do all the Embassies come under the Vote?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that China and Constantinople seemed to come under this Vote, and what he wanted to know was why these two came under it, and other places under another? It could not be very convenient to have payments scattered around in this way under several Votes.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The personnel comes under this Vote.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The personnel of all the Embassies?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Yes; we have a surveyor at China.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works seemed to attach the greatest importance to having the best, quality of linoleum; but he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) believed that these clerks had been dismissed because an inferior quality had been delivered. What he should like to know was, whether or not there had been a system of giving commissions going on in the Office of the First Commissioner of Works—giving commissions for passing an inferior article as the best article? What check had the right
    1700
    hon. Gentleman introduced to prevent such a proceeding? Why had these officials been dismissed? Was it for having taken these commissions—for passing off on the State an inferior article on the allegation that it was a superior one?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the superintendent of the Furniture Department had for four or five years in succession been, they discovered, receiving inferior linoleum instead of the best.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Was he paid anything for the transaction?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I cannot say. We, of course, had very strong suspicions in the matter. Among other causes for the dismissal of the superintendent of the Furniture Department was this—that he had told the head of his Department and myself that a good article was being supplied, and on the strength of that representation we renewed the contract three successive years. We found, on the last occasion when he informed us that a good article was being supplied, that the contractor had failed, and had paid to his creditors only 1s. in the £. The superintendent of the Department knew that, and yet did not inform us of it. He knew it, and yet allowed the contract to be renewed with the knowledge of the fact. The other clerks were dismissed because it was their duty to go to the several Departments and see the article delivered. It was their duty to examine the linoleum when delivered, and report as to whether it was according to contract. They knew perfectly well what the requirements were; and yet when an inferior article was supplied, and they were questioned, they stated that they had never examined it at all. They had certified that it was equal to the best linoleum without having examined it. They were consequently dismissed, forfeiting all right to pension.
    MR. HEALYasked whether every article purchased by this Department was not in the same position? The Department supplied everything in the way of fittings and furniture; and he wished to know whether every article was not obtained through agents in the City of London, thereby even at the present time exposing existing clerks to the temptation which had been too powerful for the clerks who had been dismissed?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the temptation would be the same, whether the article was supplied through the manufacturer or through an agent.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he did not think that was so.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Why not?
    MR. HEALYsaid, he would undertake to explain to the right hon. Gentleman why it was not the same thing. It was a very different thing; because, in the first place, when dealing with the manufacturer, they would be dealing with a person who was one of a very small class. In the case of linoleum, it was admitted that there were a very small number of manufacturers. The firm had its reputation to maintain—they had the guarantee of the name of the firm.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the manufacturer would not supply the linoleum direct; therefore the Government were obliged to get it from the agents. He had already explained that there were a few articles supplied in that way. The great bulk of the articles were supplied direct from the manufacturer, and when that was the case the trade were asked to tender. In the case of furniture, for instance, the Department generally invited seven or eight of the leading manufacturers to send in tenders. It was thought wise to ask only firms of good reputation to tender for furniture, and the Department chose the lowest price sent in.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he had been amazed by the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that the temptation to commit fraud was the same whether they were dealing with the head of a manufacturing firm or an agent. He ventured to say there was no business man in the House who would endorse the opinion which seemed to commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman. Any man who had any knowledge whatsoever of business knew that in nine cases out of 10 the corruption of which they complained was practised by the middle men. They were frequently persons who had no reputation, and he was sure there were many Members of the House who, having to deal in considerable quantities of goods, would not think of going, or of permitting their manager to go, to middle men; they would go direct to the firm, and rely upon its reputation for their protection.
    1702
    The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had argued that the temptation to the clerk was precisely the same whether they dealt with the agent or with the manufacturer; but he (Mr. Gray) could hardly credit that. He certainly did not believe it was the experience of business men.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that if a clerk was fraudulently inclined he could as easily receive a bribe from a manufacturer as from an agent; and there were just as many manufacturers who would bribe a clerk as agents. It was unquestionably the fact that if, in the case of furniture, they invited tenders from all the world, and took the lowest one, the probability was they would get articles of the lowest type of manufacture.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHconsidered that the First Commissioner of Works was perfectly right. It was notorious that in every Department there was just the same liability to corruption in cases where the manufacturer tendered, as in cases where goods were obtained through an agent. There was no more security against corruption in the one case than the other. What was wanted was, that there should be the greatest surveillance over the actions of the employés. He was sorry to hear from the First Commissioner of Works that he had no evidence upon which he could undertake a prosecution. Of course, there might be overwhelming evidence as to the negligence of the servants, but not as to the fraud. He was surprised that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had not comprehended that which was plainly stated by the right hon. Gentleman. There were certain articles which manufacturers would not supply to consumers; they would only supply those who sold again. In the case of Staines's linoleum, there was no alternative but to get it through an agent, who, of course, received a small percentage for his work. It was necessary that furniture should be made of good and well-seasoned wood; and, therefore, it was wise for the Department to confine themselves to houses which possessed good reputations. Anyone who had any experience at all knew that, if people dealt with a fourth-rate furniture manufacturer, it was very possible for them to give 15 s. for an article that was only worth 10 s. It was well-known, too,

    1703
    that those who were open to be bribed, and those who wanted to transact business with the Department, were always at work, in the hope of getting some advantage out of the State. All the Committee could ask for was, that there should be as much vigilance exercised at head-quarters as possible.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, the system of confining contracts to a few contractors who had obtained a reputation entirely shut out from the competition a new manufacturer who wished to do an honest business, [A laugh.] The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) might laugh—he was prone to that amusement; he might be a great political economist, and have many high qualities; but he and his Colleagues showed no appreciation of business. He was sorry to find there were so many theoretical business men on the Treasury Bench. His object in rising was to point out that, if the Department continued the system of confining contracts to respectable firms, they would shut out men of enterprize, who wished to make a reputation and obtain an honest living. Contracts were not entered into without security. The smallest manufacturer could be obliged, if his reputation was not made, to satisfy the Department by ample security that he should supply for 15 s. 15 s. worth.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) £25,000, Mercantile Marine Fund (Grant in Aid).
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  PRISONS BILL.— [BILL 293.]
  (Mr. Hibbert, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  PRISONS BILL.— [BILL 293.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
    MR. WARTON: What is this Bill about?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, it was merely a Bill to settle doubts which had arisen since the transference of prisons to the Secretary of State. Doubts had arisen as to whether the Secretary of State had the same powers in regard to prisons as
    1704
    the Local Authorities had under the Prisons Act of 1865. The Bill was intended to settle those doubts, and also to give power to the Secretary of State to utilize the parts of the Milbank Prison that were formerly used for convict prisoners for local prison purposes.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought it was a very objectionable thing that the Bill, which was read a first time last night, should be put down for second reading to-night. Hon. Members had had no opportunity of examining the Bill. He should like to propose some Amendments as to the proposals with regard to visits. Under the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Hibbert) would do well to consent to the adjournment of the debate. In order that time might be given to examine the Bill, he (Mr. Healy) begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Healy.)
    MR. HIBBERTassured the hon. Gentleman that he had no desire to take any undue advantage of the House. He thought that if the Bill was issued yesterday morning, sufficient time would be afforded hon. Members of seeing what the object of it was.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he would not block the second reading if the hon. Gentleman would put it down for Monday.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would be quite content to put the Committee stage off for several days, if that would meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman. He would, for instance, defer the Committee until Thursday next.
    MR. HEALYasked leave to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 278.]
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 278.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, this was the annual necessary Bill in connection with the Board of Works, to enable the Board

    1705
    to carry out schemes which had been approved by Parliament.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    MR. WARTON: Only £4,000,000, is it not?
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

MOTIONS.
  VENTILATION OF THE HOUSE.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee be appointed 'to inquire into the Ventilation of the House.'"—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was at a loss to understand upon what principle Members for this Committee had been selected. There were two Scotch Members nominated. Now, Irish Members were more continually in the House than others; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman might fairly increase the number of the Committee to seven, and add one Irish Member.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had communicated with the hon. Member who usually acted for the hon. Members opposite, and he did not think it necessary that an Irish Member should be asked to serve. As he told the hon. Member, he thought it desirable to have a small Committee, consisting, as far as possible, of experts. Had the hon. Member intimated a wish to that effect, certainly an Irish Member would have been nominated.
    Motion agreed to.
    The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Sir LYON PLAYFAIR, Sir JOSEPH PEASE, Mr. GILES, and Dr. FARQUHARSON, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Three be the quorum.

  POST OFFICE PROTECTION BILL. [Lords.]
  (Mr. Fawcett.)
  POST OFFICE PROTECTION BILL. [Lords.]

    FIRST READING.
    Bill read a first time.
    MR. WARTONsaid, this was a Bill only just brought from the House of Lords, as to which a promise was made
    1706
    as far back as the 1st of April. He thought, at least, the next stage should be deferred to Tuesday, that it might be properly considered.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he hoped in future the Government would not have these Bills from the House of Lords read in an informal way at the Table, no one knowing what was going on; it was little less than an attempt to cheat Members out of their right.
    Bill to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 297.]

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    Resolutions [July 17] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 299.]

    REVENUE, &C. BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Customs and Inland Revenue and to the Audit of Public Accounts, and for other purposes connected with the Public Revenue and Expenditure.
    Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 300.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Manx Children)* (200); Poor Law Guardians (Ireland)* (201).
Second Reading—Revision of Jurors and Voters Lists (Dublin County) (178).
Committee — Summary jurisdiction (Repeal, &c.) (155–202).
Committee—Report—Naval Enlistment* (175).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (Salt Works)* (182); Supreme Court of Judicature Amendment* (191); Building Societies Acts Amendment* (188), and passed.

SOUTHWARK AND VAUXHALL WATER BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he desired to propose some Amendments to the Bill. It was a Bill promoted by one of the Metropolitan Water Companies, asking Parliament to give it additional powers in respect of the extension of their boundaries and certain other matters, and especially to give them additional powers of entry for the purpose of cutting off the water supply. It appeared to him that, in the present state of the water question, and under existing circumstances, they ought to be very careful how they bestowed additional powers on Water Companies, without having any guarantees that these powers should be used in a reasonable way, and also to see that the public were reasonably protected. For this purpose he proposed to add two clauses to the Bill; but he would take one at a time. The first which he would move was to the effect that the Company should send quarterly or half-yearly to every person liable to the payment of water rates a note containing the figures of which the sum total was made up, including the annual value taken by the Company. Not till this note was delivered should payment by the consumer become due. One of the chief grounds of misunderstanding between the consumers and the Company would thus be removed.
  Moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following Clause:—

  1581
  "From and after the passing of this Act the Company shall send in, either quarterly or half-yearly to every person liable or about to become liable to the payment of water-rate a claim or demand note containing or accompanied by the particulars by which the sum total claimed is made out, including the annual value on which the percentage charge is levied as well as any additional items or particulars of charge, and upon, but not until, the delivery of such claim or demand note the payment by the consumer shall become due and the rights of the Company shall become enforceable." — (The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, that the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown) had been subitted to the Committee to which this Bill was referred, and of which he (Lord Romilly) was the Chairman; but, after fully considering it, they had come to the conclusion that it ought not to be inserted, on the grounds that this was the first time such a clause had been proposed to be inserted in a Water Bill, and that there ought to be a Bill containing the clause applying generally to all Water Companies.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, that, as being also a Member of the Committee referred to, he objected to the insertion of a clause of this nature on the third reading of a Bill, which was supposed to be rather a formal proceeding.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he would point out that the Company to whom the Bill referred had not the slightest objection to give particulars of their demands—in point of fact, they had been carrying out the practice for the last six months; but they objected to the difficulty they would experience if this clause was inserted, and they said it would throw upon the Company the burden of proving the delivery of the notice, which might not be a very easy matter in cases where the customers desired to evade payment. To his mind, it would give encouragement to fraudulent proceedings; and, besides, it would not affect all Water Companies alike; and, therefore, their Lordships ought not to impose this obligation on this Company alone, the matter being at this time a subject of much controversy. Besides that consideration, he might explain, with regard to the extension of the supply, that the Company had had a district assigned to it and statutory powers, but had gone beyond that district at the request of those who wished to be supplied by it
  1582
  with water. That might be ultra vires on their part; but, as far as the public were concerned, there was nothing illegal in it. He trusted that their Lordships would not impose this liability upon the Company.
  LORD CARRINGTONsaid, that the Local Government Board were quite prepared to give their support to the clause.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that, in his opinion, it would not be right to insert such a clause in the Bill, especially upon the third reading; but that the question should be dealt with in a general measure.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that while he quite agreed with the object aimed at by the insertion of the clause, he doubted the expediency of dealing with a particular Company in an exceptional manner. He would recommend that the subject should be dealt with by a separate Bill.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that it had been asked why he had introduced legislation affecting one single Water Company only. The reason was, that this Company was now coming to Parliament for additional powers; and, if any others had been doing the same, he would have made the same proposition with regard to them. They had been told that this should be done by general legislation. He had proposed to do so, but had been told that it was a private matter; and that, unless Notice was given in October or November, and all the expense undertaken of a Private Bill, he could not make a proposal at all with regard to the Metropolitan water supply. The machinery of the House seemed made for the protection of the Water Companies. All that he proposed was, that consumers should know what they were paying for; and he was quite willing that the clause should be modified, so that the service of the notice would not have to be proved. They were told that the Company had been doing this for the last six months; if that were the case, he could not see what objection there could be to their being bound to do it by Statute.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 44; Not-Contents 48: Majority 4.
  Amendment disagreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that he would not trouble their Lordships by moving any other Amendment in the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reference to an observation which had fallen from, the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) as to the difficulty which stood in his way when he proposed to deal with that subject by the general law, said, he wished to say that he more than doubted whether, according to the true and rational construction of the Standing Orders, there was any such difficulty. If, indeed, the Standing Orders had any such effect as the noble Earl supposed, they ought to be amended and revised; and he hoped that the noble Earl would give his attention to that matter.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he should certainly take the advice of the noble and learned Earl.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — SCHOOL HOURS—COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Lord President of the Council, Whether, if he is correct in saying that the Education Act of 1870 puts no limit to the number of hours that children may be kept in school, he will assign some maximum limit of hours for compulsory attendance at school? Last year he had complained of cases in which children were kept in school for eight hours; and if the noble Lord opposite the Lord President were justified in saying that no limit was assigned under the Act, the children would be at the mercy of any school board and Inspector who might be willing to sign a time-table which might require more hours in school than were allowed by the Factory Acts. In Alsace and Lorraine, a German Commission had lately recommended that young girls should not have more than 18 hours a-week schooling, and it would permit 6½ hours' home lessons. It also recommended 11 weeks' holidays in the year.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in reply, said, that it was not for him to fix any limit, neither were the hours of attendance limited by any hard-and-fast lines; but the authorities of each school framed a
  1584
  time-table, which had to be approved or disapproved by the Education Department. The Education Department, in the case of each school, judged whether the hours proposed by the managers were reasonable; and, if so, they were sanctioned accordingly. In the great majority of instances the hours sanctioned were practically those provided by the Code—namely, two hours in the early part of the day, and two hours in the afternoon.

MALTA—USE AS AN EXAMINATION CENTRE—ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL AFFAIRS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Papers and Correspondence which has taken place during the last few years with reference to the question of making Malta a centre for civil service, naval, and military examinations; also to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the proposed changes have been made in the administration of civil affairs of Malta and its dependencies, in connection with the position and duties of the Chief Secretary, who is now acting also in the capacity of Lieutenant Governor,"
  said, he hoped to be able to explain, in a few words, his reasons for moving an Address for Papers and Correspondence relative to a question which was one of great concern to the Maltese people. Some time ago, he believed when the noble Earl opposite the Secretary of State for India (the Earl of Kimberley) was Colonial Secretary, and he thought also while the noble Earl below him (the Earl of Carnarvon) filled that Office, a Correspondence took place between the Imperial Government and the Maltese Government, relative to making Malta a centre for Civil Service and Naval and Military examinations. Now, until the Papers to which he referred were before their Lordships, it was not possible to enter fully into the question; but there could be no difficulty in seeing that it was a matter of the greatest importance to the Maltese, that there should be placed within their reach, advantages from which they were now practically excluded, but which, as British subjects, they naturally felt they had some right to claim. The relations of Malta to this country were very peculiar. It was a Dependency of the British Crown; but it was not, strictly speaking,

  1585
  in the position of a Colony. The Maltese were British subjects; but, not being of British origin, it would be a mistake to regard them as a Colony like many other Dependencies of the Crown. They placed themselves voluntarily under the protection of the Crown of this country; and it was naturally stipulated that, as far as possible, the privileges of the Maltese should be preserved and their ancient laws continued. He did not, however, think that it could be said that these privileges had been so fully accorded to them as might have been expected since Malta became a Dependency of the British Crown; and it was not, he believed, till the year 1849, when Mr. More O'Ferrall was Governor, that the right of representation in the Council of Government was granted to them. He should perhaps be travelling somewhat beyond the subject which he wished now to bring specially under their Lordships' notice, if he were to go further into this; but, in considering any question relating to Malta, he thought it should be borne in mind that its position was not that of a fortress only. He wished to speak as in no way undervaluing its importance as such to this country; but it must be remembered that there was a civil population, a considerable population, and an increasing one, whose welfare, whose industries, whose trade and commerce, whose resources and their capabilities of development were matters which demanded the most careful and attentive consideration. He might add, not the least among these was the promoting facilities for education, not only elementary, but also the higher branches. These, it was true, in a great measure existed or were in progress; but there was one thing wanting, and one which greatly hindered the advance of education in the upper classes—it was the want of the opportunity of making use of the education which had been acquired. In Malta alone there was little scope for this, and a young man who had qualified himself to pass, it might be into the Civil Service, or into the Army or the Navy, was unable to offer himself for examination without coming to England. This amounted almost to exclusion; among other reasons, the expense was an almost insurmountable barrier. Knowing, as he thought he might say, something about the affairs of Malta—he might also add of the
  1586
  loyalty of the people and their desire to strengthen the ties which connected them with this country—he did not believe that there was anything at this moment which would more tend to encourage this than to give them the advantage of making Malta a centre for Civil Service, Naval, and Military examinations. It would stimulate education; it would encourage, in the most popular and legitimate manner, the study of the English language; and it would open the door of honourable competition to young men of ability and talent, to take their places in the service of their country, in Malta, or in England. He trusted the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby) would not object to laying the Papers and Correspondence relating to this subject, some of which must be of a rather distant date, upon the Table of the House. He (Earl De La Warr) was sure that, from the Papers which must be in the possession of the noble Earl in the Colonial Office, he would see the importance of what he had now ventured to bring more immediately under his notice, and he hoped their Lordships might be put in possession of fuller information than he was himself able to give. It remained only for him to ask the noble Earl, whether, the Chief Secretary at Malta, having been gazetted as Lieutenant Governor, with an increased salary as such, would have the administration of the civil affairs of the Island more immediately under his direction; and, whether the noble Earl could explain what his actual position was? He concluded by moving the Address of which he had given Notice.
  Moved, "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for Papers and for Correspondence which has taken place during the last few years with reference to the question of making Malta a centre for civil service, naval, and military examinations."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he thought it would be, perhaps, more convenient to their Lordships, as well as to his noble Friend (Earl De La Warr), if he answered first the criticism which he had made. He promised, some time ago, to lay Papers on the Table of the House which would, he thought, show the position and functions of the Chief Secretary in his new situation as Lieutenant Governor. Those Papers, he be-

  1587
  lieved, were already in a form for presentation; but, at any rate, he could say they would be in their Lordships' hands before the close of the Session. He might mention, upon that matter, that he thought the noble Earl had exaggerated in his own mind the magnitude of the change made. It was not intended to take away any of the administrative power in civil affairs at present possessed by the Governor; it was only intended to give the Chief Secretary a higher status. Nothing had been done in the recent change which would deprive the Governor of any power which he at present possessed. With regard to the Correspondence which had taken place during the last few years with reference to making Malta a centre for Civil Service, Naval and Military examinations, there would be no objection to laying it on the Table, as it was not very voluminous. It commenced in 1878 and ended in 1882, and the most material part was already in print. It would be well for the noble Earl to withdraw his Motion, and the Papers would be laid on the Table in the ordinary manner. The question of making Malta a centre for these examinations had not been raised since he had been at the Colonial Office. He thought the whole difficulty lay in this—that Malta could not very well be dealt with exceptionally. It might be a fair subject of discussion whether there should be Colonial centres of examination for the Public Service; but if that question was to be raised, it would have to be raised on a much larger scale. An exception could not be made in favour of Malta while other British Colonies and Dependencies not much more distant from England, and with as good claims, were excluded.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (REPEAL, &c.) BILL.—(No. 155.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SUMMARY JURISDICTION (REPEAL, &c.) BILL.—(No. 155.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put in Committee read.
  Moved, "That this House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, this was not a mere Consolidation Bill.
  1588
  It effected some very extensive alterations of the law; but it was of a very peculiar character, for it was so framed as to be perfectly unintelligible to the ordinary mind, because almost all its enactments were done by repealing sections picked out of a variety of Statutes. He supposed the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack would not admit that Acts of Parliament were given to them to conceal their thoughts; but that was the way the subject was treated in this Bill. Where such extensive alterations were made in the Statute Book, he thought it would have been a matter of great convenience to affix, as was sometimes done, statements showing what were the points on which it was proposed to change the law. He remembered one case in which the House were legislating in such a manner as to sweep away the whole military law of the Indian Army, and he trusted that nothing so calamitous would occur in the present case. If they were to exercise any supervision over legislation of this kind, such a Memorandum as he had suggested was absolutely indispensable.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there were a large number of Acts which were open to the same kind of objection, and the various Consolidation Acts that had in recent years been passed would all have been open to this criticism of the noble Marquess. Parliament, in this matter, was obliged to place considerable confidence in the learned and careful persons who drafted Bills of this description, and in those who examined them after their preparation; and although this kind of legislation had been carried on for a long time, and upon a large scale, he did not know of any case where there had been an oversight on the part of the competent and careful draftsmen, or that any inconvenience to the public had arisen. Parliament, therefore, had been right in bestowing that confidence. The present Bill, with some trifling alterations, and those of a formal character, was the same as passed through this House last Session, when the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Milltown) watched its progress; and he thought he might venture to say that it might be safely passed by their Lordships.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Amendments made:—The Report thereof to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 202.)

REVISION OF JURORS AND VOTERS LISTS (DUBLIN COUNTY) BILL.
(The Lord President.)
REVISION OF JURORS AND VOTERS LISTS (DUBLIN COUNTY) BILL.

  (NO. 178.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to amend the existing arrangements for the revision of jurors and voters lists in the County of Dublin, which was found to be most distinctly inconvenient and unreasonably burdensome on the official who now discharged the duty. The fact was, that in the City and County of Dublin the same official discharged the duties of Recorder and Chairman of the County. His duties in that double capacity were very onerous indeed—so onerous and so continuous throughout the year, that the holder of the office was the hardest worked judicial officer in the country. Both the present and the late Government felt that there was a strong case for relieving this officer from the particular portion of his duties dealt with in this Bill. The best way in which he could explain the matter was by referring to an application from the holder of the office which was the groundwork of this Bill. In January, 1880, the then Chairman of the County, resigned; and, in virtue of an Act passed two years before, the Chairmanship of the County devolved upon the Recorder of the City, carrying with it among other duties, and they were many, this duty of the revision of the jurors and voters list. When this event happened, the Recorder addressed a letter to the Irish Government, in which he said that he had always been of opinion that it was a mistake to unite these two important offices, that the united duties were too much for the same individual, and so on. At the same time, he said that he would be prepared to do his best to perform the duties of both offices. He said—
  "I believe that this accession to my present work will necessitate nearly continuous sittings, and will entail a much larger amount of work
  1590
  and more continuous sittings than are imposed on the holder of any other judicial office."
  And then he went on to say that, while willing, as far as possible, to discharge the duties of the two offices, there was one portion of them—namely, that of the revision of the lists for the county, which it was practically impossible for him to undertake. He added that, even if it were practicable, he did not think it would be fair to his office, or to himself—neither did he believe that the Government or Parliament would compel him—obliged as he was to hold sittings for other purposes for 11 months in the year, also to hold the sittings necessary, which would be almost continuous, for this revision. Therefore, he respectfully asked the Government to relieve him of these particular duties; and that was what the present Bill proposed to do by appointing a Revising Barrister for the County. That application of the Recorder had been referred to the Lord Chancellor of the day. He gave his opinion that the application was a reasonable one, provided that the Recorder could prove his statements to be accurate—that was to say, that the amount of time consumed by the revision of the lists proved to be what he expected. The Lord Chancellor said if the revision occupied as much time as was anticipated, he thought the duty too much for the Recorder; and he further pointed out that it was an inconvenient time of the year at which the revision must be made, inasmuch as it was just when the Licensing Sessions were held. He added, however, that it would be as well not to deal with the matter then, but to wait until the Recorder had had some experience of the actual working of the arrangement.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: Who said that?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): The then Lord Chancellor, Dr. Ball. It had turned out that the Recorder was perfectly right in his anticipation as to the amount of labour and time required for the revision of these lists. His sittings had been fully as numerous, and had taken up quite as much time as he had estimated. The Bill was introduced in accordance with the Memorandum of the Lord Chancellor in 1881; but, under the pressure of other Business, it was allowed

  1591
  to drop. Now, the same Bill had been brought in and carried through the House of Commons. It appeared, as he had said, that this unfortunate official was compelled to have almost continuous sittings, for one purpose or another, all the year round, and so was in the position of having no vacation whatever. That was a state of things which it appeared to the Government it could not be to the public interest to continue, inasmuch as it was impossible that these important duties could be satisfactorily discharged. At the same time, it appeared unreasonable and unfair to require such a multiplication of business to be performed by the same officer. To put an end to that state of things, this Bill enabled the Lord Lieutenant to appoint a Revising Barrister for the County of Dublin, and so put it in the same position as other Irish counties. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, that the Recorder of Dublin was in a better position than any similar officer in Ireland. The Recorder of Belfast, for instance, who got a less salary, had to revise the voters' lists for the County of Antrim, and the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President) must be aware that the County Court Judges of Ireland, who had an immense amount of judicial work to do, also revised the voters' lists in their districts. It seemed to him most extraordinary that this Bill should have been brought in at this time, when it was proposed to carry into law a scheme to provide new electoral machinery for the Three Kingdoms, in the shape of a Redistribution Bill, a Franchise Bill, and a Bill for the Registration of Voters. Why on earth, when they hoped soon to have these Bills before them, and to pass them into law, should the Government bring forward this measure, which he could only characterize as a job? He could not understand how the Government could lend themselves to such a thing. The Bill proposed to create a new office; and, to his mind, it was most ridiculous to do such a thing in only one county. Why should they not treat all the counties alike? He was prepared to show
  1592
  their Lordships, on the authority of the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself, that the Recorder of Dublin did not do as much work as many other officials, although he received a great deal more pay. Personally, he had nothing to say against the Recorder; indeed, he believed an official who discharged his duties more to the satisfaction of the public than Mr. Falkner did not exist. It was not to the character of the gentleman he objected, but to the creation by the Government of new offices. They were told the present Government was a Government of Retrenchment. [Opposition laughter.] Well, so it was said; but, for his part, he had seen very little of retrenchment about their policy. The salary of the Recorder of Dublin was £2,500 a-year, and Mr. Gibson had informed him that he had heard Mr. Trevelyan say, in the House of Commons, that last year this official only sat for 160 days. Was that at all in agreement with what had been said by the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President)? The noble Lord had given them to understand that the Recorder had no holidays, but was obliged to sit continuously. Such was evidently not the case. Then, with regard to the duties performed by this gentleman, he had only 5,000 voters to deal with; whilst the Recorder of Belfast had infinitely more. The County Court Judges also, although paid much smaller salaries than the Recorder of Dublin, had those lists to revise in two, and even three counties, in addition to their ordinary judicial work. The County Court Judge of Roscommon and Sligo, who had a list of 7,000 voters to revise, sat last year 300 days. His salary was only £1,500 a-year, whilst that of the Recorder of Dublin, who only sat 100 days, was £2,500. As a justification for the course he (the Marquess of Waterford) had taken in connection with the matter, he would point out to their Lordships that Notice of Motion to reject the Bill had been put on the Paper in the House of Commons by Mr. Biggar, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Healy. Nearly the whole of the Irish Conservative Members, he believed, had been opposed to the Bill; and he was satisfied that almost every noble Lord who came from Ireland was opposed to it. Therefore, he sincerely hoped that it would not be read a second time. If a Conservative Government had

  1593
  brought forward such a Bill, they would have been hooted at right and left for such a piece of jobbery in trying to create places for their political supporters. The noble Marquess concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
  THE EARL OF HOWTHsaid, that as one who was closely connected with the county of Dublin, and anxious to support its interests, he warmly supported the Bill. He would point out that it was impossible to conceive a more important jury panel than that of Dublin. Noble Lords must remember the unparalleled duties which were cast upon them during the past few years in connection with the terrible crimes and terrorism which had occurred in the country. He could not understand how the proposal in the Bill could be considered a job. Probably the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Waterford) was not aware of the difficulties connected with the registration of jurors in the country; but he could assure him they were enormous. People were anxious to avoid being placed on the list.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he had listened with attention to the arguments which had fallen from noble Lords. It was said that the Recorder of Dublin was overworked; but last year he only sat 160 days, and that did not appear excessive work. He (the Earl of Milltown) did not want to say that this was a job, although he thought it might easily be made one, neither did he object to favour being bestowed on briefless barristers, the Government being at liberty to select one for this appointment; but he protested against the country being taxed for the support of such people.
  LORD FITZGERALD, in rising to support the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, said, that he had no interest in the question, save that of friendship for the Recorder. That officer was appointed by the late Government, and had proved himself a most excellent one. It was perfectly evident, from the statements made by the Recorder, that the duties he had to discharge, in addition to his legal functions, were very inconvenient and oppressive.
  1594
  He (Lord Fitzgerald) denied that there was any political advantage to be gained by the Government through the carrying of the Bill; for their Lordships must be well aware that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or the Irish Executive, would have to appoint the Revising Barrister, who would be a barrister of 10 years' standing. There was no ground for the charge that this was a job; and, in proof of that, he would call attention to the fact that the Revising Barrister would, he presumed, be paid a fee of 100 guineas only for each revision. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Milltown) had spoken of briefless barristers. Did the noble Earl intend this as a reproach? Very probably a briefless barrister might be appointed to this office; but, for his own part, he (Lord Fitzgerald) had not the same objection to those gentlemen as some noble Lords seemed to have. In Ireland there was no difficulty in obtaining, even among briefless barristers, high-minded gentlemen capable of performing judicial duties with fairness and efficiency. As to whether the Recorder of Dublin was, or was not, an over-worked official, who ought to be relieved of a portion of his present functions, all he could say was, that if he did not believe that to be the case, he Would not support the Bill. He would also refuse his assent to it, if he thought there was anything political in it; but he knew that that was not the case. The object was merely to relieve an overworked Judge. He could not say how many days the Recorder sat, because his sittings varied; but as to the statement alleged to have come from Mr. Trevelyan through Mr. Gibson, he thought Mr. Trevelyan had probably been referring to his sittings as Recorder, and did not take into account his other legal work, and his sittings for the purpose of revising these lists. At one time, the Recorder did not revise the jury lists; but, in 1877, a Bill was passed providing that as soon as there should be a vacancy in the Chairmanship of the County Dublin, all the duties of the office should be cast on the Recorder of the City of Dublin. The whole of the duties of the Chairman of the County, civil and criminal, were to be cast on him. Two or three years afterwards Mr. Trench resigned the Chairmanship of the County; and, as he (Lord Fitzgerald) understood it, this Bill was brought in a year after-

  1595
  wards to relieve the Recorder of part of his duties. The fact was, the Recorder of Dublin, though everything he did he did well, was an over-worked official. He had an extensive criminal jurisdiction, with jurisdiction to try all except capital offences, and sat repeatedly during the year for the consideration of criminal business. He had a much larger jurisdiction than any Chairman of Quarter Sessions in England. Dublin was a community of 250,000 persons, so that, obviously, the criminal duties were no light matter; but, in addition to that, he had also important civil duties, including the whole supervision of the licensing authorities in the City of Dublin, and also an extensive equitable jurisdiction. In addition to all these, after the resignation of the late Mr. Trench, he had all the work of the Chairman of the County of Dublin, civil, criminal, and equitable, cast upon him in addition to his other work. Under these circumstances, the request for some assistance was not unreasonable. Mr. Falkner, the present Recorder, did not object to his civil, criminal, or equitable duties; but he asked to be relieved of the duty of revising the lists, which took place at the only period of the year in which he could have a short vacation. To his (Lord Fitzgerald's) mind, the revision of the jury lists was infinitely more important than the revision of the electoral lists. In conclusion, he would say that the Bill was a very proper one to relieve an overworked official from a very troublesome duty, which occupied a great deal of time; and, therefore, he supported it.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that, in his opinion, a fair case had been made out for the application for relief that had been put forward by the Recorder of Dublin. He, therefore, hoped that the opposition to the Bill would not be pressed.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he most decidedly denied that there was the shadow of a ground for describing this Bill as a job. The present proposal was not made originally to the present Government, but to the late Government; and the late Lord Chancellor had written the Memorandum which he had just communicated to the House assenting to the measure.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: Provisionally.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): Not at all; only delaying the final decision until there should be some experience of the work of the united offices. He could not help thinking it was strange, to say the least, that the noble Marquess should have spoken of this Bill as a job, considering that if the late Government had continued in Office they would certainly have introduced it in 1881.
  On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion?"
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.