Sitting of 24 November 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 1).*
Third Reading—Income Tax [38], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CAPTAIN WHELAN, R.M.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Captain Whelan has resigned his position of Resident Magistrate?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It appears that the state of Captain Whelan's health has been for some time such as to disable him from the full performance of his duties. He has been granted leave in order that it may be ascertained whether this incapacity is likely to be permanent.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether Memorials have been sent forward from Lisburn, Dungannon, and other places, signed by clergymen, including Roman Catholic clergymen in Dungannon, praying that Captain Whelan might be retained?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes. I am aware that Memorials to that effect have been received and are under consideration; but I have already announced that he is to be removed from Portadown, the state of his health not really enabling him to discharge the duties of his position there, and what I have stated has reference to the question of his being able to discharge his duties as a Resident Magistrate anywhere.
  MR. MACARTNEY: But not in consequence of misconduct?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Not directly. There was an occasion recently at Portadown when, probably owing to Captain Whelan's weakness of health, certain occurrences took place which would possibly not have otherwise taken place.
  MR. SEXTON: Have the Memorials for his retention come from the Orange Lodges that created the riot?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no knowledge of Orange Lodges in the matter.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— ALLEGED FIRING AT THE PERSON BY A GAMEKEEPER.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, on 9th August last, Owen M'Govern, caretaker on Commis Mountain, near Swanlinbar, fired a revolver at a man named Maguire; and, whether M'Govern had any licence to carry arms; and, if not, will he order a prosecution?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed that Owen M'Govern, a gamekeeper, chased a man named Maguire, whom he saw poaching on his employer's property. After he had given up the pursuit, and when Maguire was out of sight, M'Govern fired one or two shots in the air to let him, and some other men who were about, know that he was armed. There is no foundation for the statement that he fired at Maguire, nor did Maguire ever make any complaint of the kind. M'Govern had a licence under the Peace Preservation Act; but his Inland Revenue licence had expired a few days previously to this occurrence. The matter is before the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in connection with his application for a renewal of his licence. It is for them to decide whether there is ground for a prosecution.

PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND)—THE RIOTS AT PORTADOWN.
MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has received a Memorial from the magistrates of Portadown, complaining of the conduct of District Inspector Smith; if it is the fact that the magistrates met on 1st November to consult as to the preservation of the peace on 5th November, and unanimously agreed that the public houses should be closed at four o'clock upon that day; if it is the case that District Inspector Smith was present, and was directed by the magistrates to have the necessary notices prepared, and stated to the magistrates that he would carry out their instructions; if it is the case that District Inspector Smith did not

231
carry out the order of the magistrates; if it is a fact that District Inspector Smith attended a special meeting of magistrates on Saturday 8thNovember, to arrange for the preservation of the peace on Sunday the 9th; if, on Sunday the 9th, District Inspector Smith, without any authority from the magistrates, despatched cars to Armagh, Lurgan, and other places for extra police, and placed them across one of the leading streets, and if, when the police were ordered by a magistrate to "withdraw, any disturbance followed; and, if, taking into consideration the friction which exists between the magistrates and the District Inspector, the Lord Lieutenant will order the removal of Mr. Smith to another district?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Memorial referred to has been received, and is before the Government. The Question of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) compels me to anticipate the reply to that Memorial. It is true that the local magistrates at Portadown decided to close the public-houses at 4 o'clock on the 5th of November, a day when, according to annual custom, Orange drumming parties march into the town. Had the notices been issued, it was not the duty of the District Inspector to prepare them, but only to have them delivered. This arrangement was not carried out, because the Resident Magistrate, who was temporarily in charge of the district, decided, and, as I am advised, rightly, that he could not issue the orders except on sworn information that a breach of the peace was apprehended. The police were not in a condition to tender such informations, as they did not apprehend disturbance, nor did any occur. The drumming parties did not inarch through the town in anything like the usual numbers, directions forbidding them having, I understand, been issued by their Lodges. These directions were given after the magistrates had held their meeting, at which they decided to close the public-houses; and probably if they had been given earlier the fact would have modified the opinion of the magistrates as to the necessity for closing the public-houses. It is to be regretted that these circumstances were not communicated to the magistrates, which course would probably have prevented any misunderstanding in the matter. With regard to the circum-
232
stances which occurred on Sunday, the 9th of November, it is true that the magistrates had held a meeting on the previous day to consider what steps were necessary to preserve the peace; but on the Sunday District Inspector Smith became aware that the Salvation Army intended to march into a Roman Catholic quarter of the town. The magistrates had been led to believe that they would not do so, and had made their arrangements accordingly. In the emergency caused by this change of plan on the part of the Salvation Army, the District Inspector, on his own responsibility, and not having time to consult the magistrates first, collected a sufficient force of police to prevent the carrying out of the plan, which would certainly have seriously endangered the peace. It is, no doubt, to be regretted that on this occasion also the change of circumstances was not at once communicated to all the magistrates; but in the emergency of the moment this may have been difficult, if not impossible. The District Inspector did communicate with, atleast, two magistrates, who proceeded to the spot and took charge of the police. If there has been any friction between the magistrates and the District Inspector, it does not, at all events, appear, from the evidence now before the Government, that it has existed to such an extent as would necessitate or justify his removal.

NAVY—LIFE INSURANCE.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the attention of the Board has been directed to an article in The Admiralty and Horse Guards Gazette of the 15th of November, putting forward a plan of Life Insurance for Petty Officers and Seamen of the Royal Navy; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take into consideration such proposals, as making provision for the wives and orphans of those serving in the Navy?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: It is a question in which the Board have taken a great interest, and which has been specially brought to the notice of the First Lord by the Duke of Edinburgh; but there are some considerable difficulties connected with it, and I am not in a position to make any statement upon the subject.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Are the Admiralty prepared to proceed with the consideration of the subject?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Certainly.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—CASES LISTED AT LONGFORD.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether only forty - four Land cases are listed for hearing by the Sub-Commission at Longford on the 1st of December; whether considerably over one hundred cases were last March, at the landlords' instance, transferred from the County Court to the Sub-Commission; if so, why these transferred cases have not been listed for the 1st of December, when they could be conveniently heard; and, when these cases will be heard?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The facts are as stated in this Question. The Sub-Commission could not, within the period it can sit at Longford, hear more cases than the number listed. With regard to the transfer of cases from the County Court, the terms under which that arrangement was made were that the judicial rents, when fixed by the Land Commission, shall commence and run as if they had been fixed at the sitting of the Civil Bill Court, at which the applications would, but for the transfer, have been entered for hearing. It cannot be precisely stated when these cases will be heard; but, in the foregoing circumstances, suitors will not suffer by the delay.

SCOTLAND—DESTITUTION IN THE HIGHLANDS—THE CROFTERS' COMMISSION.
MR. SEXTONasked the Lord Advocate, If he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in reference to the recent application of funds collected from the public to relieve the destitution in the Highlands; and, whether the Government have made inquiry as to complaints in Lewis, Skye, and other places, alleging irregularities in dealing with the funds in question, and declaring that certain factors, who acted as distributors of meal, seed, oats, and potatoes, are now demanding payment from tenants who accepted the contributions on the understanding that they were gifts; and, if
234
so, whether, in view of the official assurance conveyed to the Royal Commission, the Government will adopt any measure to protect the small tenants in the Highlands and Islands?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): No complaints have reached me on the subject of this Question, and the terms are so general that I have not been able to make any inquiry. The Government have no special means of information as to funds which have been collected by private charity and are not under their control. But if the hon. Member will give me a more definite indication as to any particular instance of misappropriation of a charitable fund, I shall cause inquiry to be made.
MR. SEXTONasked the Lord Advocate, If he is aware that certain small tenants of the Duke of Sutherland are now being threatened with summary actions for payment of the value of seed corn and potatoes distributed to them by their landlord during the recent period of distress; whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence before the Royal Commission on the condition of the Crofters of Mr. Crawford, Factor to the Duke of Sutherland, that—
"Instead of making a reduction to the email tenants, the Duke has expanded £515 this year, during the destitution, in providing seed corn and potatoes for them;"
and, whether, if this assurance was given to the Royal Commission by the Duke's official representative, the Government can take any steps for protection of the small tenants, now threatened with prosecution for repayment of the value of the gifts?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I have caused inquiry to be made at the Sheriff Clerk's office, the only public place where it could be made, and have ascertained that no summonses have been taken out against the Duke of Sutherland's tenants for claims of the kind indicated in the Question. Beyond that I have no means of inquiring into the management of a private estate.
MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been called to the evidence of Mr. John Crawford, factor, given at Bonar Bridge before the Royal Commission, in which that gentleman, in reply to question 39,595, said—

235
"There has been a considerable reduction made to large tenants, and, instead of making a reduction to the small tenants, the Duke has expended £515 this year in providing seed corn and potatoes for them. He has also given me £500 to lay out in works of trenching and improving their lots;"
if he is aware that Mr. Crawford is now threatening summary proceedings before the sheriff for the recovery of the cost of the seed corn and potatoes said to have been given instead of a reduction of rent; and, if the crofters have any legal remedy against this claim? The hon. and learned Gentleman says that no summonses have been taken out. Is he aware whether any factor or other person has written making this demand?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I am not. But I wish to point out that in neither of the Questions is there the slightest indication given as to where this information can be obtained. It is not even said what county.
MR. MACFARLANE: I will give it to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
MR. SEXTON: So will I.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—FAIR RENTS—AGREEMENTS OUT OF COURT —CASE OF JAMES LOUGHLIN AND OTHERS, BALLINTOGHER, CO. SLIGO.
MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If he is aware that James Loughlin and other tenants in the townland of Cortron, Ballintogher, county Sligo, who entered into agreements out of Court with their landlord, fixing a fair rent, and who, at the time of entering into such agreements, were promised by the agent of the property, in the presence of witnesses, that a right of way from their holdings to the high road would be provided for them, are still, to their great injury and loss, left unprovided with such right of way; and, whether the Land Commission Court will cause to be fulfilled the condition upon which the agreements, confirmed by the Court, were made between the landlords and the tenants, or in what other manner can the tenants obtain redressed?
THE SOLICITOR GENEEAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): I am informed that nothing appears in the agreements of James Loughlin and the other tenants referred to in the Question, as filed in the Land Court, to show that
236
a condition as to the giving of a right of way was made. It is obvious, therefore, that the Land Court has no jurisdiction.

PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—EXTRA POLICE TAX AT CURRANS, CO. KERRY.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that a tax for the maintenance of extra police is now being levied upon the occupiers in the parish of Currans, Farranfore, county Kerry, which is the parish in which Constables Kennedy and Donovan were quartered as extra police until within the past few days; whether the said tax is being levied, although no grave offence has been committed in the parish for a considerable time, except the offence of which the Inspector General has convicted Constables Kennedy and Donovan; and, whether the Lord Lieutenant, under the circumstances, will remit the tax?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The men referred to formed a part of the police force at Farranfore. That is a permanent station, and is not within the Currans proclaimed district at all, but in another parish which pays no part of the tax.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CONVICTION OF PATRICK GRENNAN FOR NIGHT POACHING.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Patrick Grennan, who was tried at the Petty Sessions Court, Newtownforbes, Longford, on the 4th of this month, on a charge of having been out on the night of the 29th of September for the purpose of taking and destroying game; whether the charge against Grennan was that he was seen to lift a trap apparently set for pheasants on the estate of Lord Granard; whether he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment in Mullingar Gaol, and afterwards to find sureties for twelve months, or to be further committed for six months; and, whether, considering that he is a very young man, and the chief support of a large family, the Government will take steps for a mitigation of the sentence?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The facts as to the conviction are as

237
stated. The young man has not, however, been committed to prison, as he absconded. So long as he is a fugitive from justice, the case cannot be considered with a view to mitigation should His Excellency see ground for it; but when the accused surrenders to the law, any memorial which may be presented on his behalf will receive the careful attention of the Lord Lieutenant.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Was he tried in his absence?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No; he was sentenced in his absence.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— RIOT AT CLOGHER—ASSAULT ON JOHN MACKEY.
MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that an old labouring man named John Mackey, while returning from his work, was attacked by a party of Orangemen at Killyfaddy, near Clogher, on the night of the 13th of November; whether the assailants lit matches to scan Mr. Mackey's face, and, having satisfied themselves of his personality, beat him so cruelly that he had to be carried to his home in Clogher; whether his life is in danger from the attack of which he is the victim; whether any arrests have been made in connection with this outrage; and, whether, as Clogher is a proclaimed district, the provisions of the Crimes Act will be put in force to discover the authors of this outrage, and the direction of the investigations committed to a magistrate who is not a member of the Orange Society?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have received a Report on this matter, but as I find that summonses have been issued against some persons, and that the hearing of the cases is pending, I cannot at present make any observations on the subject, or enter at all into the merits of the case. I may say, however, that it is not the case that Mackey's life is or has been endangered by the occurrence.

EGYPT—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD— LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
MR. O'KELLYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, At what date Mr. Clifford Lloyd obtained
238
leave of absence from his post at Cairo; for what length of time leave was granted to this functionary; whether his leave was with pay or without; and, what was the amount of salary drawn from the Egyptian Treasury during the continuance of his absence from duty?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE,in reply, said, Mr. Lloyd took three months' leave, to which he was entitled, on the 1st of June, with the pay of his appointment. His salary was at the rate of £2,500 a-year. At the termination of his leave he resigned. He drew one quarter's salary during the continuance of his absence from duty.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD—LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, At what time Mr. Clifford Lloyd was granted leave of absence; for what period leave was granted, and whether it was with pay or without; and when Mr. Clifford Lloyd became re-chargeable on the Irish Estimates?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,in reply, said, he assumed that the hon. Member's Question was intended to refer to the leave of absence granted to Mr. Lloyd to enable him to accept service in the Egyptian Government. It had already been stated in the House that that leave was without pay. After his return from Egypt his leave without pay was extended to the 1st of September of the present year, when Mr. Lloyd again became chargeable on the Irish Estimates.
MR. O'KELLYsaid, that what he wanted to ascertain was, for how long a period Mr. Lloyd got leave of absence when he left this country to take service in Egypt?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied, that Mr. Lloyd received leave of absence without pay up to a certain date, and then it was renewed to cover the total time of his absence in Egypt. That leave of absence without pay ended on the 1st of September, when he became re-chargeable on the Irish Estimates, and then leave of absence with pay as Resident Magistrate was given him for three months.
MR. O'KELLYsaid, he would again call attention to the matter as to how long this gentleman received leave of

239
absence for when he left this country, and when it was renewed, and if it was renewed for an indefinite period?
MR. O'BRIENasked if anything had been determined as to his future employment?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— RIOT AT CLOGHER, CO. TYRONE.
MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, on the 12th of November, the town of Clogher, county Tyrone, was left without police protection; whether the county inspector is not aware that the presence of a police force is especially necessary on that day, owing to the occurrence of the Hiring Fair in the neighbouring village of Augher; whether, owing to the complete absence of the police, a party of Orangemen took possession of the village, and murderously assaulted some of the Catholic inhabitants; whether a Mr. Hynes was so severely beaten that his life was for a time in danger; whether Mr. Hynes complained to the Constabulary, and asked them to institute proceedings against his assailants, who are well known members of the Orange Society; whether the Orange magistrates of the district refuse to instruct the Constabulary to prosecute their brother Orangemen; and, whether the Government will send down a resident magistrate to inquire into the state of the Clogher district?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied, that he had referred to the proper authorities, and had not yet received a reply to enable him to answer the Question.

DEFENCES OF THE MERCANTILE PORTS.
MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any, and, if any, what steps have been taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on the Defences of the Mercantile Ports?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: This subject will be included in the Statement as to Naval Affairs which has been promised for Monday next; and I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to defer the Question until then.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CONSTABLES M'CARRY AND BRADY— WHITEGATE POLICE STATION, CO. CORK.
MR. DEASYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Constables M'Carry and Brady, of the Whitegate Police Station, county Cork, have often, when returning from shooting excursions, left a fowling piece at the house of a Mrs. Shaw; whether a man named Williams got a licence under the Arms Act to have and carry arms for his own protection; whether the said constables have frequently used Williams's gun for sporting purposes; whether they have more than once taken it to the forge of a blacksmith named Walsh; whether, if the above allegations be true, he will order Williams's licence to be cancelled; and, can he explain on what information he gave the answer to a Question on the same subject on 17th instant?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My former reply was based on a Report from the local Constabulary officer, who had carefully investigated the matter, and has again done so now, without arriving at any different conclusion from those already stated. According to my information, the constables did not act in the manner mentioned in this Question, and there is no sufficient ground for revoking Williams's licence.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT—SHERCOCK, CO. CAVAN.
MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, On what grounds telegraphic communication has not been extended to Shercock, county Cavan, where a market is held weekly and a large fair once every month, and which is also situated in the midst of a populous district and is eight miles from the nearest telegraph station; and, whether, in view of the reduced tariff for telegrams coming into operation, any steps will be taken to extend to Shercock the benefits which smaller places derive from having telegraphic communication extended to them?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that application for a telegraph office at Shercock was made in the year 1881, and was refused, on the ground that the

241
revenue which it was estimated would be derived from such an office would fall very far short of the working expenses. As three years have since elapsed, it is possible that the circumstances may have altered; and I will, therefore, have renewed inquiry made, and communicate the result to the hon. Member.

CIVIL SERVICE (INDIA)—CASE OF LALA HAKIM CHAUD.
MR. BIGGARasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the statement made in The Statesman of Calcutta, of 9th October, that, whereas a Native magistrate, one Lala Hakim Chaud, has been forced by Government to resign the Service for submitting an incorrect travelling statement, the conduct of Dr. Macleane, Madras Covenanted Civil Service, in committing the same offence when officiating chief magistrate of Salem, has passed unnoticed for two years; and, whether he can assure the House that inquiry will be made into the matter?
MR. J. K. CROSS: From the "Proceedings" of the Punjaub Government for June last, it appears that Lala Hakim Chaud had been suspended for certain misconduct of which he had been accused, and that an inquiry into the case had been ordered. The further "Proceedings," which will contain the results of the inquiry, have not yet been received at the India Office. A Native Sarishtadar, who was removed from his appointment for neglect of duty on the occasion of the Salem riots, has brought certain charges against Dr. Macleane, one of which was of the nature alluded to by the hon. Member for Cavan. The Madras Government, having called upon Dr. Macleane for a Report upon the matter, have informed the Secretary of State that they consider his explanation satisfactory. In these circumstances, it does not appear necessary to cause any further inquiry to be made.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—MOVILLE, CO. DONEGAL—DANIEL MORRISON.
MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, If Daniel Morrison, of Moville, now daily driving the mail car from that town to Culdaff, is the same person who in 1882 committed a robbery on one
242
Neal Doherty, for which he was convicted before the magistrates at Moville Petty Sessions, committed to gaol for said offence, and also ordered to pay ten shillings compensation to Doherty for stealing his fish; and, if so, will he be continued in daily employment in the service of the Postmaster General, conveying important letters, money orders, and valuable parcels?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Morrison is not a servant of the Post Office, but is employed by a contractor for a mail cart, who is also his brother-in-law. I am informed that, three years ago, he was convicted of petty larceny when under the influence of drink; but, as he has otherwise borne a good character, I see no reason to call upon the contractor to discharge him.

IRELAND—COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION—DISMISSAL OF MR. J. G. FITZGERALD, DISTRICT INSPECTOR.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Commissioners of National Education, some twenty years ago, dismissed Mr. J. G. Fitzgerald, when he was the Inspector of the Waterford District of Convent and Model and Parochial National Schools, for a delinquency in connection with his travelling charges, and what was the exact date of his dismissal; and, whether it is not now under the consideration of the Commissioners of National Education and the Treasury to give him a pension?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. Fitzgerald was dismissed between five and six years ago, on the ground stated in this Question. The date of the Board's Order was the 29th of January, 1879. It is not under consideration to give Mr. Fitzgerald a pension.

PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS' ACT— COOTEHILL POOR LAW BOARD—REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, on Friday 7th November, at Cootehill Poor Law Board, without notice, a resolution was passed by a majority in a Board of eight members present, and after the ordinary business was over, awarding the clerk £27 for looking after the

243
registry of Parliamentary electors; whether a similar motion had been refused at a former meeting of the Board; if so, whether the Local Government Board will sanction so large a payment for the amount of services; and, whether such a motion could be legally carried without notice, and in view of the fact that it had been refused at a former meeting of the Board?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The payment for the duty referred to is made under the authority of Section 73 of the Parliamentary Voters' Act. In the Cootehill Union the Clerk has heretofore been paid annually the sum of £25. This year he applied for an additional sum of £2, in consideration of the establishment of a new Revision Court in the Union. The matter was twice before the Guardians. On the first occasion the voting was equal (only four Guardians being present), and therefore no order was made. On the second, the sum was voted by a majority of five to two. Notice was not necessary under the Local Government Board's Regulations, or under any legal enactment. The Local Government Board do not consider the additional £2 unreasonable, in consideration of the additional duty, and accordingly they have sanctioned it.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—COLLECTION OF POOR RATES.
MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the numerous complaints which have been made by several Boards of Guardians in Ireland of the excessive poundage paid for the collection of Poor Rates, the Local Government Board will make the appointment of Poor Rate Collector in Ireland an annual instead of a life appointment, and thereby enable Boards of Guardians to throw open that office to competition?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is competent for Boards of Guardians from time to time, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, to vary the poundage on the collection paid to collectors as remuneration; and the Board do not think it necessary or advisable to amend the General Order under which these appointments are held by permanent officers.

LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ACT, 1883— ATHLONE BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Athlone Board of Guardians passed a resolution approving of the Labourers' Act, and determining to act on it; whether, more than a year ago, a representation of twelve or more ratepayers of the division of Carnagh was placed before the Athlone Board of Guardians, showing that a cottage ought to be built in the division of Carnagh (or in any area approved of by the Guardians) for a labourer named Martin Donnelly; whether the Guardians approved of that representation of the ratepayers, and appointed a Committee to choose a proper site for said cottage; whether such site was chosen, or anything else has been done, in reference to said proposed cottage; and, if nothing has been done, whether the Local Government Board have taken, or intend to take, any steps, under Sections 10 and 11 of "The Labourers' (Ireland) Act, 1883," to have such cottage erected?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is true that an application was made for the erection of a cottage in the Division of Carnagh for a man named Martin Donnelly. The application was referred to a Committee of the Guardians; but the matter fell through, because it was ascertained that Donnelly had been offered a good house, with a kitchen-garden and a rood of land, provided he would take service as a workman with the person who had offered the house and land. It was considered that in these circumstances it would be an imposition on the cesspayers to have a cottage erected for this man under the Labourers' Act. The case is not one in which the Local Government Board are called upon to take action under the 11th section.

PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—POLICE PROTECTION AT KILMOON, COUNTY CLARE.
MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, For what reason a police hut and five policemen are continued at Kilmoon, in the county of Clare; if they had been stationed there originally for the protection of a man named Gardner, who

245
took a farm from which a person had been evicted; and, if Gardner has recently surrendered back the farm, and thereby regained his popularity; and, if so, whether the Government will order the removal of the hut and extra police?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Gardiner has surrendered the farm, but another person has taken it; and the protecting police force cannot, therefore, be removed.

TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE XXIII. —MACEDONIA.
MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to accounts recently received from Macedonia, describing the state of anarchy which prevails there, and the frequent occurrence of murders and other outrages; whether, having regard to the state of Macedonia, and to the fact that there is only one British Consul now in that country, viz., the Consul at Salonica, Her Majesty's Government will again consider the propriety of placing Vice Consuls at other points of the country, such as Uskiub or Prisrend; and, whether Papers containing the representations which Her Majesty's Government are understood to have recently addressed to the Forte, pressing upon it the necessity of proceeding to carry out the Organic Law for the European Provinces of Turkey, framed in 1880, will be presented to Parliament; and, if so, when?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Reports from Her Majesty's Consul General at Salonica and the Consular Agents in Macedonia do not confirm those which have appeared in the newspapers, and which have been referred to him. But it appears that the state of things on the actual borders of Macedonia, Eastern Roumelia, and Bulgaria, and in Upper Albania and the adjoining district of Kossovo, is not satisfactory, the force at the disposal of the Government being insufficient to maintain order. There are Vice Consuls or Consular Agents at Kavala, Drama, Janina, Serres, and Previsa; but some of these places are outside the limits of Macedonia. The question whether any advantage is to be gained by appointing Vice Consuls at Uskiub and Prisrend will require consideration. Despatches
246
showing the condition of affairs in Macedonia will be laid before Parliament; but Her Majesty's Government have not addressed any recent representation to the Porte in regard to the execution of the Organic Law of August, 1880, beyond those under which Lord Dufferin had discretion to make efforts in the manner and at the time which might be most judicious. I may, perhaps, be allowed to point out in connection with this subject that the Treaty of Berlin restored the direct government of the Porte in Macedonia, and that, consequently, the attempt to carry out the reforms stipulated for by Article XXIII. have had to be made under conditions which did not exist in regard to the autonomous Province of Eastern Roumelia.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT, BALMORAL (BELFAST).
MR. DEASYasked the Postmaster General, Upon what requisition, if any, or upon whose representation, was a Telegraph Office opened at Balmoral, near Belfast, and if it is a fact that such an office was not thought necessary for the requirements of the district until a few months after Mr. James M'Mullen, the superintendent of the Telegraph Department of the Belfast Post Office, went to reside in Janeville, which is in the immediate vicinity of the Balmoral Post Office; is not the creating of a Telegraph Office at Balmoral, in a rural district, and within easy distance of one of the Telegraph Receiving Offices of Belfast, virtually extending to this Mr. James M'Mullen the rights and privileges of a private wire, by placing within his reach means of easily communicating with the department of the Belfast Office, over which he is superintendent; and, if it is usual in the Post Office Service to subserve that service to the convenience of a servant of the public?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that the Balmoral Office was opened for the transaction of telegraph business on the recommendation of the Postmaster of Belfast, who informs me that, at the time when he made the proposal, the Superintendent of the Belfast Telegraph Office did not reside at Janeville, nor was he aware that the Superintendent proposed to reside there.

PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—POLICE PROTECTION AT BALLYHAUNIS, CO. MAYO.
MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the four policemen acting as protection escort to John Cassidy, of Crossara, Ballyhaunis, county Mayo, are charged as extra police to the district; and, whether the district is not peaceable and orderly?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The protection party are not charged as extra police to the district. They are a part of the county force. The district is at present peaceable; but the local police authorities do not think it would be prudent at present to withdraw protection from Cassidy.

CIVIL SERVICE (INDIA)—THE UNCOVENANTED INDIAN SERVANTS.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will obviate misapprehension by ceasing to class as "uncovenanted" Indian servants officers sent out from this country, under covenants, contracts, or commissions from Her Majesty, to serve in the Public Works, Education Trust, or other Departments, or as Judges of the High Courts, and by confining the term "uncovenanted" to officers taken into employment by the Governments in India without such covenants or contracts; whether he will give a Return of Civil appointments of all kinds of 400 rupees per mensem, and upwards, held by uncovenanted servants in the above sense, and distinguishing Europeans from Natives, appointments held by Europeans to which, under existing Orders, Europeans may always be appointed in India, appointments ordinarily reserved for Natives, but now held by Europeans, on the ground of prior appointment to the service; also a Statement showing how far appointments to special Departments, to which Europeans are eligible, are made by pure patronage, or how far, and by what rules, patronage is limited and restricted; and, how many Natives have been appointed to "offices, places, and employments" ordinarily reserved for the Covenanted Civil Service, on the ground of "proved merit and ability," as provided by 33 Vic. c. 3, s. 6; how many of these are Natives who have
248
been promoted on account of merit and ability proved in the public service; how many are young gentlemen appointed to the Civil Service generally without previous service; and, how the merit and ability of the latter class has been proved?
MR. J. K. CROSS: I conclude that the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's Question is based on an answer I recently gave to a Question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, in answering which I adopted his technical classification. As a matter of fact it has been decided that the term "uncovenanted" shall no longer be officially applied to the engineering staff of the Public Works Department. Before pledging myself that this term will be discontinued in the case of other Departments, or promising to furnish the Return asked for by my hon. Friend, it will be necessary to communicate with the Government of India, by whom alone such a Return could be prepared.

THE CIVIL SERVICE (PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATURE)—SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Sir William Gurdon has as yet elected whether he will continue his Parliamentary candidature, or resign his appointment in the Civil Service?
THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In answer to the hon. Member's Question, I am sorry to have to state that Sir William Gurdon has elected not to retire from his candidature, and that he has been informed that this decision is incompatible with his retaining his appointment in the Treasury later than the end of January. This date was named because there would be considerable public inconvenience in giving effect to changes among the principal officers of the Treasury during the period in which the Estimates are in course of preparation. I ought to add that Sir William Gurdon has been most scrupulous in the performance of his duties at all times, and not less so during the last few months, in proof of which I may mention that during the Recess he has, in addition to his ordinary work, represented the Treasury on two Committees of Inquiry.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Inasmuch as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given an electioneering testimonial in favour of his clerk, I should like to know why, in contravention of the orders recently given in a Treasury Minute, Sir "William Brampton Gurdon is allowed to make a convenience of the Civil Service while prosecuting his candidature?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I did not give any electioneering testimonial in favour of my clerk. What I did was to state that Sir William Gurdon was one of the most distinguished members of the Civil Service, and performed his duties well. I am sorry that the hon. Member opposite should have made that remark.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I entirely adhere to it.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have already given reasons why, in the interests of the Public Service, it would be exceedingly inconvenient for Sir William Gurdon to retire during the preparation of the Estimates. As soon as the preparation of the Estimates is completed he will retire.
MR. GORSTasked the right hon. Gentleman whether any undertaking had been required from Sir William Brampton Gurdon not to prosecute his candidature during the period he would remain in office?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I did not think it necessary to ask Sir William Gurdon such a question. He is a gentleman of judgment and discretion. [Laughter from Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL.] The noble Lord thinks that nobody is a man of judgment and discretion except himself. I have no doubt that Sir William Gurdon will do what is right in the circumstances.

NAVY—DOCKYARDS—THE HAND-DRILLERS AT PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Board has as yet received the Petition from the hand-drillers in Portsmouth Dockyard?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: No Memorial on the subject has been received by the Department.

THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND)—APPOINTMENTS TO ASSISTANT SURVEYORSHIPS.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there have lately been two vacancies for Assistant Surveyor of Buildings in the Office of Public Works, Ireland; if one of these appointments has been placed open to competition, and an examination held for it, while the other was filled by the Board of Works without any examination; if this appointment is included in Schedule A, under Order in Council, 4th June 1870, which requires that all appointments in that Schedule must be filled by competition; and, if two vacancies in 1881, and one in February 1884, have been filled by open competition?
MR. COURTNEY: This is a newly-created grade, replacing the former clerks of works. Two appointments were required in it, and one was filled by the promotion of an established draftsman of 20 years' good service in the Office. This course was quite in accordance with regulations.

NAVY—FIRST-CLASS TORPEDO BOATS.
SIR JOHN HAY (for Lord HENRY LENNOX)asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, How many First Class Torpedo Boats we have built and ready for the defence of the coasts of the United Kingdom; and, what is the date when those boats were built?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: I must ask the noble Lord to allow me to defer the answer to his Question until the general Statement is made on behalf of the Government on Monday next.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—EXCONSTABLE M'SHERRY.
VISCOUNT CRICHTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. Ffrench, R.M. Omagh, county Tyrone, has lately had in his official employment an ex-constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary named McSherry; whether McSherry, during the time of his employment, was an active member and an agent of the National League; and, whether he is still in Mr. Ffrench's office?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The only ground for the suggestions in this Question, so far as I have been able

251
to ascertain, is that when the Peace Preservation Act was put into operation in the county of Tyrone, M'Sherry, who was, or had been, clerk in the District Inspector's office, gave some assistance to the Resident Magistrate in copying out gun licences. This constable received a first-class certificate of character when leaving the Constabulary Force; and it is not known that he was ever, during his 'employment, a member or an agent of the Land League.

ARMY—A CATHOLIC CHAPEL AT CHELSEA HOSPITAL.
COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can now state what decision has been arrived at with respect to providing a chapel for the use of the Catholic inmates of Chelsea Hospital, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of 1882?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: This question will be considered with reference to the Army Estimates for 1885–6.

NAVY—THE DOCKYARDS—LEADING MEN OF THE ENGINEERING BRANCH—PAY AND POSITION.
MR. GORSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is intended to deal with the pay and position of the leading men of the engineer branch in the Dockyards in a similar manner to that recently adopted in the case of the leading men of shipwrights; and, if so, when the changes are likely to take place?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: It is not intended at present to make any organic changes in the engineer branch of the Dockyards. The advancement of the leading men to the rank of Inspector would involve a general revision of the pay in the engineer branch, and for this we are not at present prepared.

PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—POLICE PROTECTION AT SWANLINBAR, CO. CAVAN.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that Mr. Pearson, District Inspector Royal Irish Constabulary at Swanlinbar, county Cavan, has during several days and nights during the month of October told off a Constabulary
252
patrol to watch the fair green of Swan-linbar; if he and a number of the men under his charge have attended to assist and protect Mr. R. H. Johnstone, J.P. Orange Grand Master of the county of Cavan, in interfering with the fair green referred to, and if the people of the locality assembled in large numbers in open day to assert their rights to the fair green named, when the Constabulary took the names of those present; and, if so, for what purpose, as these people were only asserting a long-established custom; what are the present residences of Messrs. George Nugent and Robert Francis O'Brien, whose names appear in Thom's Directory, in the list of magistrates for the county of Cavan, and if those gentlemen have at present any property qualification for the office of magistrate; and, would he state to the House the names of the five Roman Catholic gentlemen whose appointment to the Commission of the Peace for Cavan was recently announced by him?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that a stream runs between Mr. Johnstone's property and the fair green, and that Mr. Johnstone claims a right to erect an embankment for the purpose of preventing the stream from encroaching upon his land. On this question of title I cannot, of course, enter. About a month ago a large number of men, accompanied by a band, proceeded to destroy the partially-erected embankment, which Mr. Johnstone's men were at the time actually working at. The District Inspector, on hearing of this, immediately proceeded with the police to the place, but only to preserve the peace and prevent a collision between the opposing parties. The District Inspector subsequently directed the ordinary night patrol to visit the place; but no special patrol has done so. With regard to the two magistrates named in the latter part of the Question, I have no information as to their property qualification, nor do I know the address of Mr. Nugent. Mr. O'Brien, I understand, resides at Birkenhead. I am not at present able to answer the inquiry in the last paragraph of the Question.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—PETTY SESSIONS DISTRICTS, CO. CAVAN— MR. WILLIAM BRACKEN.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

253
If there is any local Catholic magistrate resident or attending Petty Sessions in the following Petty Sessions districts in the county of Cavan, viz. Ballinagh, Ballyconnell, Bawnboy, Blacklion, Bel-trooket, Donon, Killashandra, and Swan-linbar, comprising the greater part of the baronies of Lower Loughtree, Tully-homer, and Tullyhard; and, if not, how many Catholic local gentlemen have been nominated by Boards of Guardians as eligible for the Commission of the Peace in those districts, and if there are none of them entitled to hold the Commission of the Peace; and, if Mr. William Bracken, of Blacklion, has or is about to be appointed a J.P.; and, if so, is not Mr. Bracken an Orangeman, and brother to Mr. James Bracken, a J.P. for Cavan and Fermanagh, who resides only about half a mile from his brother William?
MR. BERESFORD: Before the Chief Secretary answers, I wish to ask the hon. Member for Cavan whether he has read over his Question; and whether he is aware that there is no such place as "Beltrooket" in the County Cavan, and that there are no such baronies as Tully-homer and Tullyhard?
MR. CALLAN: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is not such a place as Belturbet?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no information as to the proportions in which the different religious denominations are represented on the different District Benches referred to; but the state of the Cavan magistracy in relation to religious inequality is engaging the Lord Chancellor's attention; and—as I have already stated—of the nine gentlemen his Lordship has appointed to the Commission of the Peace, five are Roman Catholics. There have been but six names laid before the Lord Chancellor by Boards of Guardians in such a way as to enable him to bring them under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant of the county, with whom he is at present in communication as to some of these very gentlemen. With regard to Mr. William Bracken—who, I believe, belongs to the Wesleyan Body—I do not know whether the statements as to his being an Orangeman and a brother of Mr. James Bracken are correct or not. But the Lord Chancellor regards him as a gentleman having very high qualifications, and certain to make an honest and impartial magistrate.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORGES)—THE 4TH ROYAL IRISH FUSILIERS (LATE CAVAN MILITIA)—VACANCIES FOR CAPTAINS.
MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, Why two vacancies for Captains in 4th Royal Irish Fusiliers (late Cavan Militia) have not yet been filled up, although the vacancies have existed for a year past, and although the two senior lieutenants have qualified for same; and, if they are considered to be not fit for promotion, why are they allowed to remain in the regiment?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that the question of the vacancies for Captains in the 4th Royal Irish Fusiliers (late Cavan Militia) had been referred to the Military Authorities in Ireland, with whom such appointments rested, and he had not yet received their answer.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE MAILS TO KINSALE.
MR. DEASYasked the Postmaster General, Whether (he Post Office authorities have received a Memorial from the Kinsale Town Commissioners, praying that such alterations would be made in the time of the arrival and departure of the mails to and from Kinsale as would enable the people of that town to answer the letters arriving by the morning and evening mails in time for the departure of the morning and evening mails respectively; and, whether he will comply with the prayer of said Memorial?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Memorial from the Kinsale Town Commissioners was received on the 5th instant, and is under inquiry; but I am unable at present to say whether it will be practicable to afford the improvement desired.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. BARRY, LATE INSPECTOR OF CONSTABULARY.
MR. DEASYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. Barry, late County Inspector of Constabulary in the county of Cork, has been appointed to the Commission of the Peace for that county; and, whether he has approved of Mr. Barry's appointment?
MR CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that it is the case that Mr.

255
Barry is a magistrate for the County of Cork. It is no part of my functions to approve selections for the Commission of the Peace; but I have no doubt the Lord Chancellor had excellent reasons for the appointment.

NAVY (CONTRACTS)—THE BACON CONTRACT.
MR. DEASYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will state the contract price per cask of the bacon now being supplied to the Navy by a Danish firm?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: It is not usual to disclose the prices at which contracts are made.
MR. DEASYasked, Whether the Secretary to the Admiralty could give him an assurance that the tender made by a Cork firm was not lower than that made by the Danish firm?
[No reply.]
MR. DEASYgave Notice that he would call attention to the subject.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—LOCAL MAILS.
MR. DEASYasked the Postmaster General, If, in view of the growing importance of the fishery at Baltimore, County Cork, the Post Office authorities in Ireland will establish a mail car service between that village and the town of Skibbereen during the fishing season?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The question of either establishing a mail car or mounting the rural postman between Baltimore and Skibbereen during the fishing season is under inquiry; and I hope that I may be able to meet the wishes of the hon. Member.

TRADE AND COMMERCE—DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES IN VENEZUELA.
MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has succeeded in inducing the Government of Venezuela to withdraw the thirty per cent. Differential Duty imposed by Venezuela on the trade of our West India Colonies, in derogation of Treaties?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The negotiations with General Guzman Blanco have commenced; but the commercial questions have not yet been discussed. They will, however, shortly be approached.

IRELAND—CONVENT NATIONAL SCHOOLS—TEACHERS' PAY.
MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Education Commissioners have yet made arrangements for the grant of increased pay to the teachers in the Convent National Schools; and, if not, when such arrangement is likely to be made?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It has already been more than once stated, in reply to Questions on this subject, that in the event of the Treasury consenting to any arrangement involving increased expenditure it could not take effect during the current financial year. The matter is engaging the careful attention of the Government.
MR. SEXTON: Will any provision be made in the Estimates for next year?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have already stated that the matter is engaging our attention; but nothing can be done this year.

IRELAND—THE PARLIAMENT HOUSES, DUBLIN—LEASE TO THE GOVERNOR AND COMPANY OF THE BANK OF IRELAND.
MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the lease made between the Government and the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland of the Houses lately occupied by the Lords and Commons of Ireland?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think the document referred to is in the custody of the Irish Executive; but I am making inquiry on the subject. The hon. Member having given only one day's Notice of his Question, I have not yet received a reply.
MR. LEAMY: I gave Notice on Friday.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It was only received in the Irish Office on Saturday.

FRANCE AND MADAGASCAR—ABANDONMENT OF BRITISH CLAIMS.
SIR HARRY VERNEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government accept the statement of M. Ferry to Lord Lyons, Despatch 50, received

257
July 16th, 1884, as true, that there has been a retrocession on the part of England of the Island of Madagascar to France, and that England has abandoned all claims ("pretensions") to the island?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: If my hon. Friend will examine the despatch which he quotes he will see that the statement alluded to was not made by M. Ferry to Lord Lyons, but is the heading given to an annexe to the Report of the Madagascar Committee of the French Chamber. As regards the retrocession of Madagascar to France, the passage in question refers to what took place in 1816, when the British Government restored to France the establishments on the coast which had belonged to her before the war.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— CHARLEVILLE PETTY SESSIONS.
MR. O'BRIENasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether, at the last Charleville Petty Sessions, the magistrates imposed fines of a guinea each upon two policemen named Gallagher and Lee for a series of wanton assaults upon James Boland; whether, after this decision was come to, the magistrates, on a threat from the policemen's solicitor, reopened the case and dismissed the summons; whether he will call on the magistrates for a statement of their conduct on this occasion; and, whether Mr. Attorney General will give Boland facilities to proceed by indictment against the policemen?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): It is not correct that fines of a guinea each were imposed upon the two policemen. The magistrates intimated their intention to impose fines of 10 s. each, when the solicitor for the defence stated he thought some part of the evidence for the defence had been misunderstood, and also asked if a fine were imposed that it should be increased to a guinea in order to give a right of appeal. The magistrates recalled two of the witnesses for the defence, and after re-examination unanimously dismissed the case. There does not appear any ground for impugning the conduct of the magistrates or giving special facilities to Boland. If any application is made to the Attorney General he will consider it.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— MISCONDUCT OF EMERGENCY MEN, CO. TIPPERARY.
MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that three armed Emergency bailiffs, in the employment of the Land Corporation, broke into the licensed premises of Miss Cusack, at Drangan, county Tipperary, on the 2nd October last, and attempted to provoke a disturbance by drinking toasts justly offensive to Catholics, and, on their way home, repeated their offensive shouts, and discharged their revolvers along the road; whether conduct of this description is constantly indulged in by Emergency bailiffs, who are licensed to carry arms, and for whose protection extra police are quartered on the district; and, whether any steps have been taken to bring the offenders to justice, and deprive them of arms' licences?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed that the facts are not as stated in this Question. Three caretakers on evicted farms entered Miss Cusack's shop in the ordinary way, and it was afterwards alleged that when supplied with drink they drank a toast offensive to Roman Catholics. This they denied, stating, in fact, that they were refused drink. Two of them, however, were dismissed by their employers for having been absent from their posts. The third, a man of previously exemplary character, was cautioned by his employers to be very guarded in his future conduct. It is not the case that they fired off revolvers along the road, or that Emergency bailiffs constantly indulge in conduct such as is described in the Question. It does not appear that any offence was committed for which any of the men could be prosecuted.
MR. O'BRIEN: Have the two dismissed persons been deprived of their licences to carry firearms?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know how that stands; but I presume they have.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—CARMEEN DIVISION, COOTEHILL UNION.
MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that, previous to the late election of guardians for the Carmeen

259
Division of Cootehill Union, the name of David Blyzard, Esq. was erased on the Valuation Lists, and that the name of Vaughan Montgomery, Esq. was fraudulently written above same as a lessor of a Patrick M'Cabe, said Vaughan Montgomery having no interest therein; if the Local Government Board will inquire how and by whom such falsification of the Valuation Lists was effected; and, if means will be taken to prevent a repetition of any such offence?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): The alteration in the Valuation Lists was made by the Valuation Department on the report of the Revising Valuer on statements made to him. The alteration was quite bonâ fide so far as the Revising Valuer was concerned. The Board of Guardians have power to make a correction when an erroneous or false statement is made. The Commissioner of Valuation, if applied to, would have investigated the matter and corrected any error. I am informed that the error originated in a mistake caused by reason of Patrick M'Cabe having a small holding under Mr. Montgomery, and also one under Mr. Blyzard, and that both were included in the holding valued at £19 10 s., instead of being shown separately.
MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it has come under his notice that at the late election of Poor Law Guardian for the Cormeen Division of Cootehill Union, the clerk and returning officer illegally refused a voting paper to Catherine Fitzpatrick, and permitted Vaughan Montgomery, esquire, J.P. to be illegally put on the valuation lists as lessor of a Patrick M'Cabe, and allowed him a vote on his fraudulent claim; that Constable Anderson swore at inquiry he delivered into the hands of the clerk and returning officer 17 property votes of the townland of Latton, that Owen M'Cave, candidate, and his nominator, who were at the poll, swore the clerk and returning officer acknowledged their receipt, and though not forthcoming counted them as if present; that John Primrose, the declared guardian swore, said 17 votes were counted at the poll and that the clerk and returning officer did not object to their validity; that the clerk and returning officer swore at inquiry did not count them officially or make a return of them; that the said
260
clerk and returning officer in his statement to Local Government Board, paragraph 11, No. 14,583, swore he allowed four votes on a property in the townland of Carmeen, and that he swore at inquiry these were four of the said 17 property votes of the townland of Latton, which he swore at same inquiry he did not count officially; if this clerk is the same person who, in September 1879, fell under the notice of the Local Government Board, for fraudulent dealings in the coal contract for Cootehill Workhouse; and, if, considering the decision then come to by the Local Government Board and his conduct in the late election, as proved by his own contradictory testimony on oath, he will be continued as a fit and proper person to hold the office of clerk and returning officer?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): It is the fact that the Clerk and Returning Officer disallowed the vote of Catherine Fitzpatrick. He did this in error. He also allowed Mr. Montgomery to vote as a lessor. There was nothing to show he was aware this claim was unfounded or fraudulent. Constable Anderson, at the inquiry, swore as stated in the second paragraph. Owen M'Cabe swore the Returning Officer admitted the receipt. The officer denied this on oath. The Returning Officer swore that no votes were recorded by him in respect of the missing papers. John Primrose swore that an arrangement was made between himself and the other candidate to count these votes. The Returning Officer swore no votes were recorded by him in respect of these papers. The Returning Officer did not allow four votes in respect of claims lodged by the Rev. Mr. O'Donnell, and an inquiry was held in 1879 into alleged misconduct of this same clerk, but no fraudulent dealings were proved. Nothing transpired in connection with the proceedings at the late election to lead the Local Government Board to the conclusion that the Returning Officer was unfit for his position, and they do not propose to remove him.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BARTLEY HERNON, RELIEVING OFFICER, ARRAN ISLANDS.
MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the result of the inquiry re-

261
cently held by the Local Government Board Inspector, with respect to the charges against Bartley Hernon, who occupies the positions of relieving officer and estate bailiff on the Isles of Arran; was it proved that Hernon used his twofold office to defraud a poor fisherman, named Michal Logan, of a house, under threat of withdrawing out-door relief from him; was it further proved that Hernon kept no book showing his distribution of relief, and that the traders to whom he gave his orders (one of them a cousin of his) were also unable to give any satisfactory account of his transactions; has Hernon been previously charged with similar irregularities; and, will the Local Government Board now insist on his removal from the office of relieving officer?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Since the inquiry was held, some further complaints have been made against Hernon, and the Local Government Board are in communication with the Guardians on the subject. They cannot, therefore, report on the case at present, or come to a final decision; but they will deal with it as speedily as possible. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Member will be so good as to put his Question down again at a later date.
MR. O'BRIEN: I will renew the Question, and I will further ask whether this is the man upon whose evidence Kilmartin was sentenced to penal servitude.

BURIALS ACT—BURIAL GROUND FOR THE PARISH OF COLSTERWORTH— SENDING OF CORPSE TO THE HOME SECRETARY.
MR. ILLINGWORTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will state what measures he has taken in the matter of the clergyman who sent the dead body of a child to the Home Office, in consequence of a dispute as to the appropriation of a cemetery?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: As this matter arose out of one of those unhappy quarrels about burial grounds, I will ask leave to state the facts of the case. The churchyard in the parish of Colsterworth had been closed, and a Burial Board was constituted, on which the Rector had the principal voice. It was proposed to make two burial grounds. There was to be one for the exclusive
262
use of members of the Church of England; while another was to be allotted to the Nonconformists. Upon that proposal I received a remonstrance from Lord Dysart and 90 ratepayers objecting to the burial ground for Noncomformists—firstly, because they wished to have a common burial ground, which seems to me to be the principle of the Act; and, secondly, because the ground allotted to them was a disused quarry. I referred to the Inspector of Burial Grounds, who reported that the arrangement was offensive to the Dissenters, and that the Burial Board ought to have shown more consideration for their feelings, especially as the ground would have been used almost entirely by them. Thereupon, I told the Rector that I would not consent to a proposal which appeared to me to be offensive, and I recommended that some other arrangement should be made. I added that until some arrangement was made which would be satisfactory to people of all religious opinions I should not give my sanction. In the answer which I received on the 29th of October, I was told that I should be attacked in the House of Commons by six influential Members of Parliament; but I have the satisfaction of knowing that that never occurred. The next proceeding was that on Sunday, the 2nd of November, a box containing the dead body of a child was delivered at the Home Office. I ordered inquiries to be made; and it then appeared that a clergyman, the Rev. J. Mirehouse, had been to the house of the parent of a stillborn child and had obtained the body on the promise that he would bury it that night in the presence of the father. The father accordingly went to the clergyman's house, but was put off with some excuse. On the morning of the next day the clergyman drove to the railway station, and carried a box with him. The footman whom he instructed to pack up the box says his master told him to address it to the Home Secretary, as he was sending him a small present. The servant thought it was a box of game. The clergyman instructed the porter not to put a label upon it. He says now that he sent it as a protest, but he desired that a label might not be put on the box in order that it might not be known where it came from. When inquiries were made by the police, Mr. Mirehouse denied that he knew any-

263
thing about the matter—a statement which he now admits to be untrue. Mr. Mirehouse is prepared to make an apology to me. In my opinion, there was no offence committed against me. The offence was against the Church of which he is a minister, against public decency, and against the parents of the child, whom he deliberately deceived. I have instructed the Law Officers of the Crown to advise me whether it is an offence which can be proceeded against by law. If so, the case will be placed in the hands of the Public Prosecutor. Whether it be a legal offence or not, I shall bring the conduct of this clergyman before the Bishop, in order that, if possible, he may remove him from the charge of a parish, for which, in my opinion, he is entirely unfitted.

THE WEST INDIA COLONIES—TRINIDAD AND BRITISH GUIANA— FINANCE.
MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, in view of the present crisis in West Indian industries, measures will be taken without delay either by sending out the Royal Commissioners who have already dealt with the other West India Colonies or otherwise, to inquire into what appears to be the excessive expenditure of Trinidad and British Guiana, and to suggest measures for its reduction?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Government have been carefully considering the expenditure in these Colonies, and are of opinion that it presents no such question of difficulty as to render necessary at this moment an inquiry by a Royal Commission, which involves a heavy outlay and gives rise to expectations, or apprehensions, which it is well to avoid. The Governors of British Guiana and Trinidad have recently been in this country, and have had opportunities of discussing the financial reforms, which appear practicable.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE CORK MAIL.
MR. PARNELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the accelerated mail train arrives in Cork daily at 12.10 p.m., and that on arrival a delay of half-an-hour takes place in the sorting
264
of the letters carried by it; whether he is aware that replies to these must be posted by 1.20, or with an extra stamp by 1.30; and, whether it is possible to expedite the sorting of the letters in the Post Office at Cork; and, if not, whether, in view of the short time afforded to the people of that city for answering their correspondence, he will consider the advisability of sorting the letters en route from Dublin, having them ready for delivery upon their arrival?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am fully alive to the importance of expediting as far as possible the delivery of letters at Cork after the arrival of the day mail from Dublin, seeing how short an interval it has been possible to allow for preparation of replies for the up-day mail. Inquiries are now being made whether it would be possible to effect some further sortation of the letters en route; but I am assured that it would not be possible, under any plan, so to arrange the letters in the travelling post-office as to have them ready for delivery to the postmen on the arrival of the train. The letters are arranged ac-according to streets in the travelling office; but it is the postmen alone in Cork who can arrange them in the actual order of delivery, and this necessitates letters being taken to the Post Office.

POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES) —ROMAN CATHOLICS IN WORKHOUSES—RIGHT OF ATTENDING MASS OUTDOORS—THE SHEFFIELD BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether (in spite of his assurance last Session that the cause of complaint should be removed) the representations of the Local Government Board to the Sheffield Board of Guardians in respect of the Roman Catholic inmates of the workhouses there have remained practically disregarded; and, whether his Department is prepared to vindicate the Law in this respect, and also the religious rights of the Catholic poor in question?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Board, on the 12th of August last, wrote to the Guardians of the Sheffield Union, expressing their view as to the importance of permitting those inmates of the workhouse for whom a service according to

265
their own creed is not provided in the workhouse to attend religious service on each Sunday, instead of on alternate Sundays as proposed by the Guardians, and urging the Guardians to amend their regulations so as to provide for this. The Board, receiving no reply, wrote to the Guardians again on the 4th of September. They were then informed that the Board's letters had been referred to a committee, and that the subject was under consideration; and that, on the committee reporting, the determination of the Guardians would be communicated without delay. Receiving no further communication, the Board wrote again to the Guardians on the 31st of October; and as they received no answer, they arranged for one of their Inspectors to attend a meeting of the Guardians. He attended the meeting held on Wednesday last; and I regret to state that, although the workhouse committee reported in favour of such an amendment as the Board desired, the Guardians determined to adhere to the arrangements which they had made as to alternate Sundays. The Board, having regard to the distinct refusal of the Guardians to allow the inmates such rights as to attendance at Divine Worship as the Statute contemplates, considered that they had no alternative but to issue a compulsory order in the matter, and before this notice appeared the directions for the issue of such an order were given. The order was signed on Saturday, and will be issued to-day.

PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES)— MARYBOROUGH GAOL.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will state the result of the special inquiry he promised into the circumstances of the recent sickness and deaths among the warders in Mary borough Gaol; whether, since his answer of the week before last, another death has occurred in the prison; and, whether he will cause a sworn inquiry to be held into the work which has been required of the warders since the additional prison was opened in August last?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Very full inquiry is being made by my direction into the cause of the recent cases of illness and deaths in Mary-
266
borough Prison. It is true that another death has occurred since the former Question. I expect to receive the full Report in the course of this week.

EGYPT—STATE OF AFFAIRS— BRIGANDAGE.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the following statements that have recently appeared in the correspondence of The Times and Standard are correct: that there are now 16,000 British troops in Egypt, and 9,000 of these south of Assouan; that brigandage is rife in the province of Minieh, and that the Minister of the Interior has gone to investigate it; that Mason Bey, Governor of Massowah, reports that the arrangement with Abyssinia as to the Egyptians at Kassala and other towns is wholly impracticable, and that the French are actively intriguing against us in Abyssinia?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The British troops in Egypt, including Marines, amount in round numbers to 16,000 men. The troops south of Assouan, or moving up the Nile, may be estimated at 9,000. No report has been recently received by Her Majesty's Government such as is referred to by the hon. Member, neither are they aware that the Treaty arrangements with Abyssinia, in regard to Kassala, &c, have been declared by Mason Bey to be impracticable. Colonel Chermside, Egyptian Governor of the Red Sea Littoral, is taking steps for the evacuation of the places referred to; but, before carrying it out, he wishes to consult the Egyptian Government personally as to some details, and has started for Cairo with that object. I must decline to reply to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, which is offensive to a friendly Power.

EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—SUSPENSION OF THE SINKING FUND.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What reply Her Majesty's Ministers have made to the protest of the five Great Powers against the act, which they declared to be one of financial repudiation, which the Khedive committed on the advice of the British Cabinet?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The protest was replied to by the Egyptian Government, to whom it was addressed. In that reply the Egyptian Government acknowledges that the suspension of payments to the Caisse was a breach of the Law of Liquidation and expresses the hope that the Powers will take into consideration the abnormal state of affairs which rendered the step necessary. Her Majesty's Government, in their communications with Foreign Powers, have supported the action of the Egyptian Government, and expressed their regret that exceptional circumstances should have made it necessary. The Correspondence on this subject will be laid before Parliament.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—12 & 13 WILL. IV., SECTION 12—EXTRA POLICE, CO. WATERFORD.
MR. P. J. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the number and cost of the extra police force, with the different areas of chargeability, at present quartered in the county of Waterford?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There are 116 extra men in the county of Waterford under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act of Will. IV. The area of chargeability is the county at large, and the cost to the county, after allowing for vacanies as prescribed by the Statute, amounts to £1,016 for the six months ended 30th September last.
MR. P. J. POWER: What has occurred in the County Waterford to justify this very high-handed conduct on the part of the Government?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is another Question that can hardly be answered at once.
MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to give Notice that on the earliest opportunity I will call attention to the very highhanded proceedings of the Irish Government in this matter.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—MR. JAMES ELLIS FRENCH.
MR. DEASYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that, during Mr. French's suspension, a constable in the Kilcrea Police Barrack, county Cork, swore informations of a criminal assault against him; if so, why the said constable was
268
not examined at Mr. French's trial? Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question, I wish to say that the prefix "Mr." was introduced after I handed the draft to the Clerk at the Table. I wish to know now whether it is irregular or out of Order to omit the prefix "Mr." from the name of a man who was twice tried for an abominable offence, and who is now awaiting trial on the same charge?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): It is not correct to say that informations were sworn by any constable as alleged. That is a sufficient answer to the last paragraph of the Question; but I may say that if such an information had been sworn it would not be evidence.
MR. DEASY: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be irregular to omit the prefix "Mr." from the name of French under the circumstances I have mentioned?
MR. SPEAKER: I do not see that any question of Order would arise in adding the prefix "Mr.," or in omitting it.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—FINTONA PETTY SESSIONS, CO. TYRONE —TRESPASS IN PURSUIT OF GAME.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the 10th instant, at Fintona (county Tyrone) Petty Sessions, in a case in which Peter M'Casker charged a man named M'Cauley, gamekeeper to Mr. Eccles, a local landlord, with assault, although it was proved in evidence that M'Cauley had presented a gun at M'Casker, and that M'Cauley and his three sons attacked M'Casker and a boy twelve years old, who was in his company, and beat M'Casker so seriously that he had to be attended by the dispensary doctor, the Justices dismissed the charge against M'Cauley; whether, when M'Casker applied to the bench for a summons against M'Cauley, one of the Justices said that M'Cauley, as a gamekeeper, was in the execution of his duty, and afterwards, when the case against M'Cauley had been heard, the same Justice declared from the bench that there was nothing wrong in the assault upon M'Casker; whether, notwithstanding that at the time of the assault upon him M'Casker was proceeding across the fields from his father's house to the house of a

269
neighbour, had neither dog nor gun with him, and was at least a mile distant from the mountain preserved by M'Cauley's employer, the Justices fined M'Casker ten shillings for being in the pursuit of game; whether the Justices, on the same day, fined two other men £2 10s. for carrying a gun without a licence, but refused to impose any penalty on M'Cauley, although he had no licence, and did not procure an Inland Revenue licence until after the summons had been taken out against him; and, whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland will investigate this Case?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed by the police authorities of the district that the facts of this case are as follows: —A gamekeeper, named Mellon, with his son, a lad of 15 or 16, met M'Casker and another man on a preserved property, beating for game with sticks, and having stones in their hands. He warned them off, and a scuffle ensued, in the course of which M'Casker got a cut on his head. The gamekeeper did not present a gun at him, but threw his gun down. M'Casker went to the dispensary, and had the injury dressed. It was not serions. He applied to the magistrates for a summons against the gamekeeper for assault, and it was at once granted. The case was dismissed by a Bench of eight magistrates. I have not been able to ascertain that any such statements were made from the Bench as are mentioned in the Question. M'Casker was convicted and fined 10 s. for the trespass in pursuit of game. On the same day two other men were fined £2 10 s. each for carrying a gun without a Revenue licence. This was the lowest penalty the magistrates could legally impose, but it has since been reduced by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The magistrates could not have imposed a similar penalty on the gamekeeper, as be was not charged with the offence. It is a fact, however, that he had not a licence at the time, and I understand the case is now before the Inland Revenue authorities for consideration whether a prosecution should be ordered.

THE NEW PUBLIC OFFICES—THE ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE-MESSRS. LEEMING'S DESIGNS.
MR. BROADHURSTasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will state
270
what progress is being made towards commencing the Government buildings in Whitehall; and, whether he will use his influence to commence the works as soon as possible?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: As my Successor in the Office of Works has not yet been appointed, I may be permitted to answer this Question. I stated at the end of the last Session that the Government had adopted the conclusions of the judges in the recent competition for the new Admiralty and War Office, and would submit a Vote next Session for erecting a building on the design of Messrs. Leeming. In the interval Messrs. Leeming have been engaged in making various improvements in their design, which I had suggested to them after considering all the criticism which had been made. A short time ago they submitted their design with these improvements, and I gave a final approval to them. They are now engaged in making more detailed drawings embodying all these improvements, which will be laid before Parliament; but the Government are under an engagement to the House not to commence the building until a Vote shall have been taken.
In further answer to Mr. WARTON,
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the alterations which bad been suggested had not been submitted to the other judges.
MR. W. H. SMITHasked if the final drawings would be exhibited before the Vote was asked?
MR. SHAW LEFEVREreplied, that he should certainly exhibit the final drawings, including all the improvements he had suggested.

ARMY PROMOTION-THE 19TH HUSSARS.
MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that the Senior Major of the 19th Hussars has been lately passed over in promotion to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel by a junior officer of the same regiment; whether the Major thus superseded was considered unfit for promotion; and, whether he is now on probation for, or attached to, the Army Pay Department?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: A man may make a good paymaster

271
who could not command a Cavalry regiment; and it is a fact that an officer considered ineligible for the command of his regiment is now a paymaster on probation. His confirmation in the Army Pay Department will depend on the manner in which he passes through his probation, and on the examination held at its conclusion.

TREATY OF BERLIN—THE JEWS IN ROUMANIA.
BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact that, notwithstanding Article 44 of the Treaty of Berlin, which provides that equal civil and political rights should be enjoyed by all persons in Roumania irrespectively of creed, the Jews in that Country, who have been reduced to destitution by the edict against hawking issued by the Roumanian Government, are debarred from the privilege accorded to all other Roumanians of obtaining passports for the purpose of earning their living elsewhere, and are only granted documents enabling them to leave the Country on the condition that they shall not re-enter it, such condition imposing upon them the alternative of banishment or starvation; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will, under these circumstances, as one of the Signatory Powers of the Treaty of Berlin, protest against all violation of its provisions?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Legation at Bucharest, notwithstanding diligent inquiries, have been unable to obtain any confirmation of the allegation as to passports made in the hon. Member's Question. There may have been cases of individual hardship, due to the formalities unfortunately existing in Roumania which are insisted upon to prevent the sale of passports and the introduction by that means of destitute Jewish families from neighbouring countries. It does not appear that any complaints to the Roumanian Government have been made by the Jewish community on this subject.
BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Will the noble Lord state whether he has ascertained as a fact that passports are granted to Jews in Roumania as in other cases?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That is what I understand, except that
272
they are subject to certain formalities, which are taken where it is supposed that an emigrant is likely to attempt to sell his passport to somebody else with a view of bringing in a strange Jewish family from over the border. There appears to be some kind of understanding on the part of the Roumanian Government, and I think also on the part of the Russian Government, to prevent the sale of these passports with the view of preventing the bringing in an overpopulation into the country.
BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Can the noble Lord state whether it is a fact that any Jew applying for a passport in Roumania is informed when receiving it that it prevents his return to the country?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I believe it is so in some cases, and the effect of these formalities is no doubt the cause of the inconvenience referred to. The answer of the Roumanian Government is that they are necessary as a matter of internal arrangement.
BARON HENRY DE WORMS: In consequence of the answers of the noble Lord, I beg to give Notice that I will take the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the House to this subject.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS— PORTSMOUTH.
MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it be the fact, as stated in the local press, that the Watch Committee of Portsmouth have received a letter from the Admiralty suggesting that the working of the Contagious Diseases Acts should be taken up by the Borough Police; and, whether it be true that the Government contributes 2s. 6d. for every woman induced to go to the hospital?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The police, as my hon. and learned Friend is aware, no longer exercise any compulsory powers, but voluntary applicants are received into the Lock Hospitals on signing a form attested by an Inspector of Police. It has been suggested to the Mayor of Portsmouth that the duty of attestation should be performed by the Superintendent of Borough Police on payment of a fee of 2s. 6d. This payment is proposed as a remuneration for the extra duty entailed on the Superintendent, and not

273
as an inducement to patients to enter the Lock Hospitals.

NAVY—H.M.SS. "AJAX" AND "AGAMEMNON,"
MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the defects in the steering accuracy of the Ajax and Agamemnon have been rectified; if not, what measures the Admiralty intend adopting for this purpose?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The Agamemnon made the passage from Portsmouth to Plymouth, and is now on her way to Malta, from which port we shall learn the results of further experience of the steering qualities.
SIR JOHN HAYasked whether it was true that the speed of the Agamemnon did not exceed nine knots an hour?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: I do not know.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD.
MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he was correctly understood to have stated that Mr. Clifford Lloyd is at present in receipt of the pay and allowances of a first-class Resident Magistrate in Ireland, although his functions in that Country practically ceased in 1882; if at the time his attention had been called to an answer given by his predecessor on July 28th of this year to the Junior Member for Wexford County, reported in Hansard, as follows:—
"Mr. Lloyd is not at present in receipt of any sum from any Irish Vote, nor, so far as I am aware, from the Revenues of the United Kingdom. The last payment made to him from the Vote, out of which the salaries of Resident Magistrates are provided, was up to the 18th of September, 1883."—(3 Hansard, [291] 647.)
and, if he will now state the grounds upon which Mr. Lloyd has been replaced in receipt of pay and allowances?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is no inconsistency between anything I have said and the reply of my right hon. Friend to the Question asked on the 28th July. Mr. Lloyd has simply reverted to his original position as a Resident Magistrate, and is now enjoying a period of leave, with pay, to which he was considered entitled.
MR. KENNY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I asked his Predecessor early in last Session, whether
274
it was not a violation of the Civil Service regulations that Mr. Clifford Lloyd should be absent without a medical certificate of illness, that the Chief Secretary replied—
"A medical certificate is not requisite under the regulations of the Civil Service, unless the leave granted to the officer be sick leave which allows pay. Leave without pay is often granted Civil servants for their own private business on due cause being shown to the head of the Department."
And are we to conclude from this either that Mr. Clifford Lloyd is now absent on sick leave, which allows pay, or that he has satisfied the head of his Department that the urgency of his private affairs entitles him to leave of absence with pay?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. Lloyd is at present in the enjoyment of three months' leave, with pay. He was entitled to that because he practically served in 1880 without any leave.
MR. KENNY: I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman, is it not a distinct breach of the regulations of the Civil Service that any person in the position of Mr. Lloyd should be absent on leave, and at the same time be in receipt of pay without due cause being shown?
MR CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware there is any such Civil Service regulation.
MR. KENNY: I am aware that there is.
MR. O'KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd's absence in Egypt was not a prolonged leave of absence and a very remunerative one as well?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It was not a leave which would enable him to recover his health. It was not one ensuring any leisure.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CO. MAYO.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Irish Government has been given to the character and circumstances of the eviction of a number of families, on the 6th and 7th instants, at Killasaer, county Mayo, from the properties of Mr. Roger M'Carrick, of Kilglass, Mr. John M'Carrick, of Cloonboney, and Mr. William Lyons of Ballina; whether, in most of the cases, the tenants owed but one year's

275
rent, to which an amount, for law costs, about equal to a year's rent, was added in consequence of the expensive mode of legal procedure adopted by the landlords; whether the widow Nieland, with her six children, was evicted because she could not pay the legal costs on the spot, though an offer of the year's rent due by her was made; whether, in the case of Martin Joy, in which the tenant had gone to a neighbouring town to arrange for immediate satisfaction of the decree, the sheriff refused to wait for half-a-day; whether, in the case of Thomas Brennan, the tenant went to England to labour, and sent from England to the agent, Mr. Scott, £3 out of a total of £6 15 s. due for one year's rent only, but the agent took out a decree for the full amount (not acknowledging the remittance), and added over £3 for costs; and, whether the Government will consider the need of legislation to oblige landlords, in cases of small tenants, to use the cheapest system of legal procedure, and, in cases where the full amount of rent due is tendered, to give time in respect of the legal costs?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed that several families were evicted for non-payment of a year's rent, as stated in the first part of the Question. I have not been able to ascertain the relative amounts of debts and costs in the several cases; but, as the decrees were obtained in the County Courts, the incidental costs must have been small. I am informed that, though there was some proposal for a subscription being made to pay the widow Nieland's rent, no money was offered. In the case of Martin Joy, the Sheriff's assistant himself lent the money to pay the amount of the decree, and no eviction took place in that instance. In the case of Brennan I am informed that credit was given in the decree for the £3 paid, though the receipt of it was not at the time acknowledged. All the tenants evicted were readmitted as caretakers. I am informed that the costs have been reduced by law to the minimum scale which would cover expenses. I believe it to be quite true that in some cases the necessary costs form a considerable proportion of the decree; but if the acceptance of the rent apart from the costs were made obligatory, it would, I fear, be practically impossible to recover the costs.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.
MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, If he is aware that General Gordon, in Egyptian Papers, No. 8, stated in a telegram to Sir Evelyn Baring that "what would have greatest effect would be rumour of English intervention;" whether it is possible to prevent intelligence being passed on that a relieving force is on its way to Khartoum for the purpose of liberating General Gordon and other garrisons, and also for the purpose of liberating the Soudanese from Egyptian rule; and, whether it is true that all communications transmitted to this Country are subject to supervision by the British Military authorities?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think the statement made by General Gordon is accurately stated in the first part of the Question. I am not quite certain that I understand the second portion of the Question. It probably would not be possible to prevent intelligence being passed on "that a relieving force is on its way to Khartoum" for the purposes stated in the Question. But, whether it is possible or not, there is no desire that I am aware of on the part of anyone to prevent such intelligence from reaching Khartoum and its neighbourhood. It is true that the telegraph wire from Dongola is under the superintendence of the military authorities, but not for the purpose of preventing the transmission of such intelligence as is referred to in the Question, but simply to prevent the transmission of details of a military character, a knowledge of which might be injurious to our own troops.

THE CIVIL SERVICE (PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATURE).
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, with reference to his Minute of the 12th instant declaring that a Civil Servant seeking a seat in the House of Commons shall resign his office so soon as he announces himself as a candidate, and to his intention to submit an Order to the Queen in Council binding upon the entire Permanent Civil Service, he will also submit or support an Address to Her Majesty praying that the Writ of Summons to the House of Lords of any

277
Peer accepting Office in that Service may be cancelled?
MR. GLADSTONE: The subject of my hon. Friend's Question is an important one, and it is not to be dealt with in the summary manner as the Question rather appears to suggest. The incompatibility of a position in the Civil Service with candidature for a seat in the House of Commons has relation to a statutory provision which prevents a Civil servant from sitting in the House of Commons. There is no such statutory provision against the holding of an Office by a Peer. Consequently, the positions of the two are quite different; and it would require a good deal of consideration and investigation, I think, before any full view could be given of the case. I do not mean to say that there ought or ought not to be any restraints whatever upon the holding of Civil Offices by Peers, because there are such restraints imposed from time to time by the Executive Government in making particular arrangements, as, for example, in the case of a very distinguished Civil servant, the late Lord Tenterden, who was Permanent Under Secretary at the Foreign Office, and who abstained altogether from action in the House of Lords. Indeed, I am not quite certain that he ever took his seat. [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: He did.] Again, in another case where the action of a Civil servant would lead him into immediate contact with the Executive Government, Lord Arran, Commissioner of Customs, upon being made a Peer of the United Kingdom, and contemplating the taking of a share in the Business of the House of Lords, will shortly resign the Office of Commissioner of Customs. The question, however, is a large one, and I am unable to do more at present than point out that the cases are by no means parallel.

EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—LORD NORTH-BROOK'S REPORT.
MR. M'COANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is now the intention of Her Majesty's Government to offer to the Government of the Khedive any advice founded on Lord North-brook's Report?
MR. GLADSTONE: It would be premature to give an answer to this Question, because, as I have already stated, Her Majesty's Government have been
278
preparing a plan which it is their intention and which they are on the point of submitting to the European Powers. Upon that approval would depend in many points of detail the advice Her Majesty's Government may give to the Government of the Khedive. We cannot give any information about it until we know if that plan will meet with the approval of the European Powers.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Can the right hon. Gentleman form any opinion when that approval is likely to be received?
MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir, I really cannot, because the Powers may have to communicate together; but I do not think the delay will be very long. At the same time, I cannot undertake to say when the Powers will communicate their reply, and consequently when the plan will be laid upon the Table.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: When will the plan be laid before the Powers?
MR. GLADSTONE: I think I may say immediately.
MR. MARRIOTT: Will the plan be in accordance with Lord Northbrook's Report?
MR. GLADSTONE: It would be still more absolutely premature for me to say whether it would or not.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I ask the Prime Minister, whether he did not state last Session, before the Conference met, that the financial condition of Egypt was one of the utmost urgency? I wish to know whether that condition of urgency has passed away?
MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; it still continues to be urgent. Some measures have been taken, but with considerable inconvenience, for the purpose of meeting the difficulty for a time; but the urgency still continues.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Then are we to understand that, in spite of Egyptian Finance being in a condition of the utmost urgency, the Prime Minister is totally unable to state any period at which he is likely to make a statement to the House?
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Are the plans of the Government, which are to be communicated to the other Powers, also to be submitted to a Legislative Council in Egypt, instituted by a Decree of the Khedive on the recommendation

279
of Lord Duffer in that all Budgets are to be laid before the Assembly?
MR. GLADSTONE: The plan of which I have spoken has no connection with the Legislative Council.
BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the statement reported to have been made on Thursday in the French Senate by M. de Freycinet, to the effect that England intended to propose a second Conference on Egyptian Affairs, is correct; whether an assurance will be given to the House that before any such Conference meets Lord Northbrook's Report, together with the proposals of Her Majesty's Government on the subject, will be laid upon the Table; and, whether he will give an assurance that no separate agreement will be made with another Power or Powers which would restrict the action of this Country, either as regards finance or general policy in Egypt, before an opportunity is given to the House of discussing the question?
MR. GLADSTONE: I think the hon. Gentleman must have put the Question under some misapprehension. We have not received, nor is it likely we shall receive, any official information with regard to the statement of a private Member of the Senate of France upon his own responsibility. M. de Freycinet is not a Member of the French Government, and he has no official information. Whatever he stated, I have no doubt he stated in perfect good faith, but undoubtedly in error. There is no proposal for a Conference before the European Powers, or about to be before them. That disposes of the second part of the Question. With regard to the third part, as regards finance, I believe most explicit assurances have been given; but to say that the Government would not agree with anybody to do anything with regard to Egypt until it brought the particular matter before the House would be an entire abdication of the functions of the Government.
BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I would like to ask whether it is in the power of the Government to establish, with other Powers, a system of Multiple Control without consulting the House of Commons?
MR. GLADSTONE: I am not sure that that is a Question within the fair scope of Questions; but, as I under-
280
stand, a Multiple Control is for the management of finance, and the Government will take very good care, as I have said, not to trench on the functions of Parliament.

THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES—CONFEDERATION.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, as five of the Australian Colonies are willing to confederate, he will now propose the Enabling Bill which, in reply to the then Member for Waterford County, he expressed his readiness to introduce in the closing days of the last Session?
MR. GLADSTONE: I will not say that the expressions used in the Question are incorrect, but they might; mislead. The draft Bill which was under consideration is not what is commonly understood by a Bill to enable the Australasian Colonies to confederate. The word "confederate" is too wide. It is a Bill to enable them to establish simply a Federal Council for the purpose of dealing with certain questions of common interest, leaving Colonial institutions intact. It is more limited, then, than what is commonly understood by confederation. There is, however, such, a Bill; and the opinion of the Government about it is this. It is tolerably clear that if it were introduced it would require amendment in certain respects. That being so, the Government consider it would be the much more convenient course to have these amendments considered, in concert with the Colonies, before they produce the Bill in the Imperial Parliament.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDIS TRIBUTION.
MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTT: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether any opportunity will be given to the House of discussing the arrangements between the Government and the Leaders of the Opposition in regard to redistribution before the introduction of the Government measure?
MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; there is not the least intention on the part of the Government to afford such an opportunity. Indeed, it appears to me that it would be highly inconvenient to

281
the House if such a course were pursued. After the Redistribution of Seats Bill is introduced the House will have an opportunity of passing judgment on its provisions, and then it will have a chance of saying whether it approves or disapproves of any arrangement that may be made; but if a discussion were raised before the Redistribution Bill is introduced, there would be no matter for the House to discuss.

SOUTH AFRICA—BECHUANALAND— MONTSIOA'S TERRITORY.
SIR WILLIAM M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have received any information as to the hoisting of the Transvaal flag by Mr. Dutoit, a leading official of the Transvaal in Montsioa's territory?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, the Government had received no information as to the alleged hoisting of the Transvaal flag by Mr. Dutoit, a leading official of the Transvaal, in Montsioa's territory, but they would take steps to find out whether the report was true.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS)— FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE—OUTBREAK IN NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.
In reply to Mr. CLARE READ,
MR. TREVELYANsaid, that there had been an outbreak of cattle disease at Newstead Abbey. A communication was received from the local authority, and three Inspectors went down. The local authority consented to the slaughter of 39 cattle. He was sorry to say a second outbreak occurred about a mile off, and five cattle were attacked. The Inspector, who was especially cognizant of this part of the subject, had not yet made up his mind as to the probable origin of the outbreaks. He was without information as to whether the local authority would consent to slaughter in the second case.
MR. CLARE READasked whether it was certain that it was foot-and-mouth disease?
MR. TREVELYANsaid, that in the first case there was no doubt whatever.

ARMY—LONGFORD BARRACKS.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Secretary of State for War, When the Government intended to quarter cavalry
282
again in the barracks of Longford; and, when it is proposed to rebuild the wing of the barracks lately burnt down, and to repair the existing buildings?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The distribution of the troops in Ireland rests entirely with the General Officer Commanding in Ireland. He reports that, under present circumstances, he has no occasion for Cavalry at Longford. The existing buildings will be put in proper repair; but it is not considered necessary to rebuild the wing which was burnt down.

NAVY—SAILORS' GROG.
MR. WARTONdesired to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty a Question of which he had given verbal private Notice—namely, Whether the appointment of Mr. Caine to the post of Civil Lord must be taken as an indication of a desire on the part of the Government to deprive sailors of their grog?
[No reply.]

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS, REDISTRIBUTION, BILL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The House is extremely anxious to know what demands are likely to be made upon its time; and the Government, of course, are most anxious to meet the views and the necessities of the House in that respect as far as they can. On that account I am going to take a step which, of course, is not very usual—that is to say, to give Notice of a Bill, at the same time stating that I cannot be absolutely certain that I shall be in a condition to introduce it. But I think it will be for the convenience of the House to state that I have hopes of being able to introduce a Bill for the redistribution of seats for immediate circulation among Members on this day week, and I propose to give a Notice to that effect tonight. I cannot be quite certain of performing it, and in that case it would be necessary to have a postponement; but I will take care in that case that Members shall be put in possession of my intention to postpone. In the meantime, I will place a Notice on the Paper to-day for that purpose. Then, Sir, as I say, my hope is that it might be introduced and circulated immediately; and I am inclined to believe that, viewing the

  283
  nature of the measure and the general acquiescence in its principles, it would be for the convenience of the House in that case that we should proceed with the second reading of the Bill on Thursday in next week. The House, I think, would much prefer that to any proposal to introduce the Bill on an earlier day, because that would necessarily interfere with the adjournment, which, upon the whole, appears to be desired by the House.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to make this statement partly in view of a contemplated adjournment of the House for some days; and, if that is so, although undoubtedly the course is one which is not exactly in accordance with many precedents, yet it is one, being for the general convenience of the House, to which I shall offer no objection. It is understood that it does not prejudge the question with regard to the period at which the Bill will be ready.
  Mr. GLADSTONEintimated his assent.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  INCOME TAX BILL.
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Courtney,)
  INCOME TAX BILL.

    [BILL 38.] THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORcalled attention to the imposition of the police tax in certain parts of Queen's County. There was no portion of Ireland more free from crime of every description than the county which he had the honour to represent; and, at the same time, there was no portion of Ireland which suffered more from landlord oppression and injustice. Within the last few weeks the authorities in Ireland had thought fit to place in the most peaceable districts in the county a number of extra police. There was no reason whatever for that step, and the presence of those officers was a standing outrage upon the people. The Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, Mr. W. R. Fitzmaurice, had stated recently that he did not think there was any more vexatious
    284
    or tormenting measure than that which placed upon the county the extra police.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I apprehend that the hon. Member is not in Order in discussing a police rate when the Income Tax Bill is before the House. The Income Tax Bill has nothing to do with the police rate.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it was a Constitutional principle in this country that the redress of grievances should precede Supply. It was now proposed to tax the people of Ireland and the people of this country in the shape of additional Income Tax. He would oppose any additional tax upon the people of Ireland. He maintained that this taxation was most unjustifiable, and a great grievance. Of course, if the Speaker was prepared to rule that a Member was not at liberty to object to existing taxation and to a Money Bill on the ground that it was unjust and grievous, he would at once resume his seat; but he did not think that any Member would contend that he was departing from a very long line of precedents in resisting the imposition of additional taxes on the third reading of a Money Bill.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that this Motion should be moved on going into Supply. He certainly held that any question as to the imposition of a police rate would be quite irrelevant upon the consideration of the Income Tax Bill.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Then, Mr. Speaker, I will content myself by making a protest against this measure.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  MOTIONS.

    ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at the rising of the House this day, do adjourn till Monday next."—(Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, it now appeared likely that the House would adjourn over Christmas without being made in any degree acquainted with the course which the Government intended to take with regard to Egyptian finance. It was perfectly clear that if the condition of affairs was,

    285
    as the Prime Minister had stated, critical in-June or July, it was ten-fold more so at the present moment. The question was one of the greatest possible urgency; and he thought the House ought to be informed whether the Government proposed to adjourn over Christmas without knowing anything of the position in which the country was placed with reference to Egyptian finance and kindred matters?
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he had heard the Motion that had just been made with very great regret, and he could not acquiesce in it without respectfully protesting against the course proposed. In the first place, it was a new attack on the rights of private Members. Indeed, if this were to be taken as a precedent, it would practically almost annihilate them. If the Government were to take private Members' nights when they wanted them, and to call on the House to adjourn when they did not, a private Member would, indeed, be fortunate whoever got a chance of bringing forward a Motion at all. In the present case the hardship was all the greater, because, at the urgent appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, they had forborne to press the question of proportional representation when the Franchise Bill was before the House. The right hon. Gentleman said, indeed, that the mode of voting was a question entirely separate and detached from the question of the franchise. But a large number of hon. Gentlemen were of the opposite opinion, and considered that the mode of voting was more germane to the franchise than to redistribution. At any rate, they would have been within their rights had they pressed it; but in response to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman they had not done so; and what was their reward? Now, when the Franchise Bill was safe, and when they had secured an opportunity, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to adjourn just over the day, and thus deprive them of their chance. He said deprive, because on Friday they could have discussed the question on its own merits, which would have elicited the opinion of the House much more satisfactorily than could be done by an Amendment to a Government Bill. This would be so under almost any circumstances, but was peculiarly the case in the present instance. The Leaders of the two great
    286
    Parties were settling a Bill outside of this House and without its cognizance. He did not in any way complain of this; quite the contrary; but it certainly had its inconveniences. There were large sections of that House who were thus left unrepresented. Let them take, for instance, those Gentlemen, more than 200 in number, who were in favour of proportional representation. If a Bill were brought in which did not recognize their principle, it was quite clear that they would be placed at a disadvantage much greater than could be the case under ordinary circumstances. No one would say that this question was unimportant or unworthy the attention of Parliament. Far from that, it was, perhaps, the most vital question they had still to settle. It appealed to no Party, or, rather, it appealed to all. It secured to both sides what they most desired. On the one hand, it protected the minority; on the other, it secured the majority.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet is not entitled to discuss the principle of his Motion on the question of the adjournment of the House.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked if he might point out to the House what the effect of the present system was.
    MR. SPEAKER: That would be in direct violation of the ruling I have just given.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, what he was endeavouring to do was to point out the importance of the Motion on the Paper for Friday next, and the effect of the present Motion in preventing its being discussed. He would, of course, bow to the ruling of the Chair, expressing, at the same time, his regret that Her Majesty's Government should have taken the course they had taken. If it was the general wish of the House that they should discuss the whole question when they had the Bill before them, he would not desire to oppose the Motion.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Nothing could be more legitimate than the appeal of my hon. Friend when he demands that he should have opportunities of discussing the important subject in which he takes so great an interest after the Redistribution of Seats Bill is before the House. In point of fact, if we were so disposed, we could not deprive him of those opportunities; but they are evidently both legitimate in themselves,

    287
    and we should not have any desire in any way to stint them. My hon. Friend has rather complained of the Government for making this Motion of Adjournment. Now, I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be a very great stretch of power on the part of the Administration if we were to endeavour, by the use of influence, to force a Motion of this kind upon the House. Bat that, as my hon. Friend, I am sure, knows, is not the case at all. "We have no such idea. Our idea has simply been to take the course which, although, unfortunately, it could not command the assent of all Members, yet should be, on the whole, agreeable to the general sentiment of the House; and I think we have interpreted the feeling of the House aright when we believed that it was the desire of the House, from the point that we have now reached, to await a time when we should have reasonable hope that the Redistribution Bill should be placed before the House. I cannot quite admit that private Members are so much to be condoled with on the present occasion; because, I may observe, that out of every six hours that the House has sat since we met on the 23rd of October, at least five of them have been occupied by private Members. Private Members had a full and clear fortnight on all subjects that they chose to introduce upon the Address. They foresaw, perhaps, that their chances would be narrow afterwards, and they took advantage, as they were entitled to do, of the opportunities then granted. But, undoubtedly, the time demanded by the Government during these present Sittings has not been exorbitant. With regard to my hon. Friend's argument, that this question might be advantageously discussed on Friday next, I cannot agree in the convenience of such a course; because the meaning of my hon. Friend would only be that the composition and structure of the Redistribution of Seats Bill were to be kept uncertain until after Friday. Otherwise, there would be no possible use in a discussion anterior to the introduction of the Bill. Now, I doubt very much if a large proportion of the 200—the army commanded by my hon. Friend, and of whom he is so worthy a Loader—would not revolt very seriously against the proposition that, for the sake of a discussion on Friday next, the Redistribu-
    288
    tion of Seats Bill is to be kept suspended —for, otherwise, there is no use in a discussion before it is introduced. It is true that there would be an advantage to those who hold strong opinions upon any one of the many points which may enter into the Redistribution Bill in having a full discussion of their views before that Bill was introduced; but, at the same time, that means that while all have rights and claims the granting of those rights would mean indefinite delay in the introduction of that Bill. With regard to the Question of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), I am afraid the only pledge which it is in my power to give is the pledge that we shall use every effort that we can to procure a speedy decision, and that when we have procured that decision, we shall lose no time in bringing the subject before the House of Commons. It will be for the House to consider when we come near the time—for we are not near that time yet; it seems pretty clear that we cannot have our Christmas holiday this week, or next week—but when we come nearer the time for adjourning over Christmas, then it will be for the Government, if they are in a position to do it, to give information to the House, or for the House to determine whether it shall regulate its Sittings or the period of its adjournment with reference to the possibility of getting such information. It would be premature for me to enter at present into the question. I can assure the noble Lord, because of the state of finance in Egypt, and because of our general duty on both the one ground and the other, not a moment will be lost in accelerating a decision so far as it rests with us.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he hoped the Government would give some information to the House with reference to the subjects to come before the proposed Conference on the affairs of Egypt. They desired to know whether it would be confined to the consideration of financial questions; or whether it would be competent for the Conference to discuss such questions as the Earl of North-brook's proposed abolition of the Egyptian Army?
    MR. GLADSTONEwas understood to say that there would not be a Conference, but a reference to the Powers.
    MR. ONSLOWobserved that it would be practically the same thing. [Lord

    289
    EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, no!"] He wished to ask another question with reference to the Redistribution Bill. According to the statement of the Prime Minister only two days would elapse between its introduction and the second reading. That he considered far too short an interval, which he thought should extend at least over 10 days, in order to give hon. Members and the country generally adequate opportunity for the consideration of this important subject.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTwished to say a few words in support of what fell from his hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock). He did not do so, however, on the somewhat limited ground of defence of the system of proportional representation; but he did so on the broader ground of the rights of private Members. The position in which they were was this— that in consequence of the relations of amity which had lately been established between the two Front Benches, what would happen in this case was different from what had happened in almost every case that was brought before the House. Therefore, when this great measure of redistribution came before the House, the two Front Benches being allied, independent Members would be simply wasting their breath if they addressed the House in support of their particular views. It had hitherto been the safeguard of the independence of this House that there was a disagreement between the two Front Benches. Hitherto both Front Benches had heard discussions, and ultimately the House came to a conclusion; but the whole of that was reversed on the present occasion. The Government had taken into their council, for better or worse, a distinguished statesman, not even a Member of this House, not a Member of the Liberal Party, but the Leader of the Tory majority—he might almost say the master of the Tory Party in "another place." That noble Marquess had been taken, apparently, more or less—and he thought he might say more rather than less—into the councils of the Government. That was a state of things which brought about a very novel experience; and he put his Question to the Prime Minister that evening with the view of eliciting whether any Member could discuss his Question, when alone discussion could be of use, before the Bill agreed
    290
    to by both Parties was laid on the Table. There were many matters upon which hon. Members' opinions were divided, and not divided strictly on the lines of Party feeling. There was not only the question of proportional representation, but there were the questions of equal electoral districts, of single-Member constituencies, of grouping of boroughs, and the representation of University seats. There was a multitude of other questions of such importance that one would have thought they would be discussed in Parliament before virtually a decision was come to; but when the Redistribution Bill was laid on the Table of the House virtually a decision would have been come to upon those important matters. He hoped, however, that that would not be so. He hoped and trusted that something might be said before the adjournment that would give them some security that independent action on matters of this character would be preserved. He thought some declaration of that sort from the Government was very much to be desired before they adjourned. He had the greatest confidence in the Head of the Government, and the Cabinet with which he was associated; but he was bound to say he had very much less confidence in them when he found them combining with the Marquess of Salisbury. They had been told again and again during the late Vacation that the Marquess of Salisbury was not to be trusted. They had, indeed, been told a great deal more than that. The Home Secretary, he thought, in an elaborate speech, compared the Marquess of Salisbury to Strafford. Well, Strafford was now in their midst. He had been taken into the councils of the Government; and he it was who was equally being consulted as to what were the important and main provisions of the Redistribution Bill. He (Mr. Elliot) looked upon that state of things, he was bound to say, with great suspicion. The Marquess of Salisbury was entitled to wield great power; but his place was in the House of Lords, in which it was his privilege or his duty to criticize, and to criticize as sharply as he could, the recommendations and actions of Her Majesty's Government. But if the Leader of the Tory majority was to be consulted by the Liberal Government of the day before this Bill was brought into the House of Commons, he

    291
    could not help thinking a very different state of things was being brought about. He had the greatest respect for the ability and courage of the Marquess of Salisbury; but all he could say, to use common language, was, what business had the Marquess of Salisbury to settle the main features of a Bill which was to be brought before the House of Commons? That was a condition of things upon which he should like some light to be thrown. He should far rather have preferred that the old course had been followed—that the Redistribution Bill, as to which it seemed that Parties were, after all, not likely to have much difference about, should have been laid on the Table of the House of Commons when they had got rid of the Franchise Bill, and that, without being hampered with the restrictions, each Party should have been left free to take its own course. After all, the Liberal Party were in a majority in the House of Commons; and he did not like to see the Liberal majority throwing away its advantages in councils where eminent statesmen met together, where their proceedings were unknown, and where, at all events, they lost the advantages which they possessed in that House. He hoped, before they adjourned that evening, that they would have some assurance from Her Majesty's Government that the freedom of the House would be preserved—not merely that the two Front Benches were in a condition of friendship and amity towards each other. He knew that what he was saying now was, to a certain extent, unpalatable to the distinguished men on the two Front Benches; but, after all, those Benches, important as they were, were not all the House; and he was surprised to find that the arrangement that had been made had as yet drawn forth very little comment from those who heard the speeches made in the country during the Recess. He did not think that the Gentlemen to whom he alluded were at all wanting in strength of language when they addressed meetings in the country; but what he should like to see was a little more strenuousness in supporting in that House what they had said outside. If the Marquess of Salisbury was everything that he had been said to be outside, he (Mr. Elliot), for one, was not satisfied that the noble Marquess was a fit person to be consulted as to the pro-
    292
    visions of the Redistribution Bill. He hoped before they adjourned some satisfaction would be given them as to the questions he had raised.
    MR. MARRIOTTsaid, before the Motion for Adjournment was put, he should like to express an opinion, which he thought was shared by many people both in and out of that House—namely, the bad effect the non-production of the Earl of Northbrook's Report would have in Egypt and on the Continent generally. When the Earl of Northbrook was in Egypt, the people there believed —he (Mr. Marriott) knew it to be a fact, it was published in the papers, and it was generally reported—that he had come out there to show how the indemnities for the Alexandria bombardment could be paid. Those people were now naturally very anxious about the matter; but the Prime Minister said the Report was not given because he was consulting foreign nations on the subject. He (Mr. Marriott) could only say that the 3,275 people, heads of families, who had had their property destroyed, and had been practically ruined, after waiting nearly three years, would have good reason to complain if they had to wait still longer. He, therefore, hoped that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would, before the adjournment took place, give some indication as to when the Earl of Northbrook's Report was to be laid upon the Table.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,replying to the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott), said, one of the most important and essential portions of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government at the Conference was the payment of the Alexandria indemnities; and if the proposals of Her Majesty's Government had been accepted those indemnities would have been settled. Of course, the settlement of those indemnities was a portion of any proposal as to the finances of Egypt; and he could assure the hon. and learned Member that the importance of the subject had not escaped the notice of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Elliot), who had mentioned a series of subjects as to which he hoped the freedom of Parliament would not be lost through the communications which were taking place at the present time, he (Sir Charles W.

    293
    Dilke) would not go through the whole list, but would take one example which he thought his hon. and learned Friend would admit to be a fair one—one in which his hon. and learned Friend was deeply interested, as also were the other Scotch Members—the subject of grouping of burghs in Scotland. It could not be for one moment supposed that the freedom of Parliament on such a subject could be lost through what had taken place. That was clearly a matter which must be open to the House, not only to discuss, but to decide upon. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) protested against taking the second reading of the Redistribution Bill two days after it was introduced. The hon. Member assumed that there would be a long debate on the Question of the second reading, and wished more time to be given; but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) need hardly point out that the whole question of the merits of the Bill could be raised again on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair; and, in all probability, a very considerable time would elapse between the second reading and the Committee stage, during which hon. Members and the country could make up their minds as to the course they would take in the debate on the Question that the Speaker leave the Chair. With regard to the second reading, that did not seem to him a matter on which there was a very great difference of opinion. Everybody in the House and in the country admitted that it was necessary that redistribution should be at once dealt with by Parliament; and the Question of the second reading of the Redistribution Bill was hardly so important as subsequent discussions which would arise in Committee of the Whole House. The Government themselves made the suggestion to the House that the second reading stage should be passed on rapidly with a view to the general convenience of the House. Hon. Members had been called together at this time at some inconvenience to themselves, and would be anxious, no doubt, many of them, to get back to the country. There was no great probability, he should think, of a Division against the second reading of the Bill on the merits as to whether there should or should not be a Redistribution Bill; and no doubt the House would gradually thin, and Members would go away. That was the reason why they
    294
    thought it desirable to make rapid progress with the early stages of the Bill, and until further evidence reached the Government of a contrary feeling on the part of the House than had reached them, they should consider it was for the general convenience of the House that the early stages of the Bill should be rapidly passed.
    MR. WOODALL: I am not at all disposed to deny that the proposal of the Prime Minister, for the Adjournment of the House for the remainder of the week, is consistent with the general convenience of hon. Members; but, inasmuch as I have obtained a very favourable place on the Paper for tomorrow, for the second reading of the Women's Suffrage Bill, and as I shall be deprived by this arrangement of the opportunity of taking the opinion of the House upon the measure of which I am in charge, it will hardly be expected that I am prepared to receive the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman with perfect equanimity. Very recently, in reply to a Question from an hon. Gentleman opposite, the Prime Minister was good enough to say that I had manifested my sincerity upon this question by having pressed forward on a former occasion the right of women householders to vote, even to the inconvenience of the Government and of the Liberal Party. I have no desire, now, to put either the one or the other to further inconvenience, by pressing my claim to bring forward the measure tomorrow. The Franchise Bill may now be supposed to be resting in tranquil security in "another place;" and we have been assured, under the most promising circumstances, that we shall have an early opportunity of discussing the Bill for the Redistribution of Seats. It does, however, appear to me to be extremely important that, before a complete and comprehensive scheme of Reform in connection with the Representation of the People is concluded, we should have, at any rate, an opportunity of discussing the important question of Women's Suffrage—the charge of which has been entrusted to me. It may, of course, be possible that when the question shall have been debated, the provision which I am anxious to introduce may be negatived; but, on the other hand, it may, as I hope, receive so large an amount of support that we may fairly

    295
    and reasonably allow the claim put forward by women—that they should be afforded the opportunity of exercising the franchise concurrently with the other electors of the Three Kingdoms. The Prime Minister, a few months ago, declared his desire that this question should be submitted to, and determined by, the House as an open question—that it should be submitted on its own merits to the free, impartial, and dispassionate judgment of Parliament. I sincerely desire that the opportunity may be found for enabling the House to address itself to a question of so much importance in the manner suggested by the Prime Minister. A Bill, which has been most carefully drawn, is now in the hands of hon. Members. It is supported by a large number of hon. Members sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House; and I think I have a right to claim for those who sit on this side that they have loyally accepted the decision arrived at in June, as to the fitness of the opportunity then selected for bringing forward the question, and that they have refrained from impeding the progress of the Franchise Bill while it has been passing through this House. I hope that this mild protest against the decision to which the House is about to come will be received as an evidence of my desire to propitiate the general feeling of the House, and to facilitate the carrying out of the proposals of the Government; but with a distinct understanding that it is my intention to bring forward this measure under more convenient circumstances. I sincerely trust that an opportunity will be given for discussing the question at as early a period as may be practicable.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the Government must have seen from what had passed how necessary it was that a few days' adjournment should take place. He thought the House must feel that the right hon. Baronet made out a very fair plea, asking the House to deal specially with the Redistribution Bill, so as to proceed in accordance with the policy already indicated. It did seem to him that the second reading of the Bill might be taken on the general ground that the Redistribution Bill was desired on both sides of the House, and that questions of detail could be far more conveniently discussed on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. With
    296
    regard to the observations on Egypt, he was bound to say it would be little less than scandalous if Parliament was allowed to separate without seeing the Report of the Earl of Northbrook, and without any information as to the finance of Egypt, for which not only the House, but the country and the civilized world, were looking. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) referred to the failure of the Conference; but why was it a failure? Why did Europe refuse to give the Government a mandate? He trusted that before Parliament separated some communication would be made on the subject.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he thought the action of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Elliot) was thoroughly justified by what had since fallen from, the occupants of the Front Benches, who seemed to think that, an arrangement having been come to between those Benches, all opposition from below the Gangway on either side was to be deprecated. He rose to say a word on the subject, chiefly in order that the Prime Minister might not think that either inside or outside Parliament there were only a few who took the view of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Elliot). He was as much surprised as his hon. and learned Friend that there had been so few demonstrations of opinion with regard to the extraordinary compact or secret Treaty that had been entered into. He had looked in vain, however, for any protest from independent quarters of the House. Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland did not usually shrink from making a protest; but on this occasion they had been dumb. Then they used to have a small but very vigorous Party of independent Members opposite. That Party had perished through internal dissensions. They heard the other day the last shriek of liberty from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst); and they could only conclude that the noble Lord the Leader of the Party (Lord Randolph Churchill) had gone over to the more respectable, but less independent, Bench adjoining. They were also disappointed with the quarter of the House in which he (Mr. Buchanan) sat. Those who generally took a lead in such matters were dumb. Ex-Ministers who generally sat there had not appeared, and the "corner" men were silent, so that it was left to his hon. and learned Friend, to whom

    297
    they were exceedingly indebted, to bring this subject forward. Those who shared the views of his hon. and learned Friend did not wish to minimize the great benefit of getting the Franchise Bill through before Christmas. They also recognized that no one could possibly have adequately judged the situation in the way the Prime Minister could; and, therefore, so far as the right hon. Gentleman's judgment went in dealing with facts unknown to the House generally, they cheerfully bowed to the decision arrived at. They did not, however, think this opportunity should pass without calling attention to the peculiar features of the arrangement. The Prime Minister said he could give no precedent for the action taken by Her Majesty's Government on this occasion. Of course, they could not expect the Prime Minister to join in their fears as to the consequences which might ensue if other Leaders in future should take a similar course. His hon. and learned Friend said he objected to this course of action because of want of precedent, and the disadvantageous position in which Members would be put in criticizing the details of the Bill. He was grateful for the statement of the President of the Local Government Board. So far as he understood the right hon. Gentleman, he meant to say the question of the grouping of burghs was not to be one of the matters which was to be decided by arrangement between the two Front Benches. That would be left entirely to the judgment of the House, and the House would be free to express its opinion and propose Amendments as if no such arrangement had been entered into—that was to say, if Amendments were moved, the Government would not be able to say this was a matter which had been arranged with the Opposition, and, therefore, they must consider it a vital question. That was good as far as it went; but what his hon. and learned Friend desired was that, as far as possible, specific questions involving principles should be left to the judgment of the House.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that he did not propose to intervene long between the Government and the revolt of the Scotch "rump." It was clear that when the Redistribution Bill was introduced into that House the Government would have to stand or fall by it—if they were defeated upon it they must
    298
    go out, or else they would break faith with the Leaders of the Opposition. With regard to the present position of Egyptian finance, the situation was grave enough; but the gravity of the situation had been greatly enhanced by the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to make any early statement to the House on the subject of the Earl of Northbrook's Report. Egypt had incurred a deficiency of £8,000,000, for which Her Majesty's Government were morally and practically responsible. As long ago as last July Her Majesty's Government had promised to make a statement upon the subject; but now they said that they were wholly unable to lay the Earl of Northbrook's Report before the House. He understood the truth to be that Ministers had practically rejected that Report, and that the Earl of Northbrook's Mission had consequently been added to the long list of failures in Egypt. The Government was now seeking to gain time. That was a state of things which that House had a right to resent; and it might lead them into a very dangerous and, possibly, very humiliating position in Egypt. Having, at the present moment, 16,000 troops making their way southward in Egypt, they might soon find themselves under notice to quit from the Powers. It would be a scandal if the Government were to allow that Sitting to be adjourned without their making some definite statement with regard to Egypt. The House ought to have an opportunity of discussing the representation of minorities by proportional voting before the second reading of the Redistribution Bill was entered upon. If hon. Members who were interested in proportional voting were in earnest, he would suggest to the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) to move, as an Amendment to the Prime Minister's Motion, that the House should only adjourn until Friday.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he had always felt that Her Majesty's Government would break faith with the House of Commons if they introduced their Bill for Redistribution before receiving a satisfactory pledge for the passing of the Franchise Bill. Until they arrived at that position he was not disposed to quarrel with the attitude they took up on the question. To turn to another matter, early in the evening he had put a Question to the Prime

    299
    Minister with regard to the peculiarity in the other House which allowed a Peer to become a permanent Civil servant without vacating his seat in the House of Lords; and it was obvious, from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, that he did not think the peculiarity could be defended. He (Mr. Arnold) now begged to give Notice that on the earliest possible day in the present Sitting, or the next Session of Parliament, he would move for a—
    "Select Committee to inquire into the number of Peers in Parliament; their qualifications and privileges as such; into the Constitution of the House of Lords, its powers, privileges, and immunities; also into the manner in which conferences are held with that House and communications made between the Lords and Commons, and in which Private Bills are referred to separate Committees of the two Houses of Parliament."
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he did not think some of his hon. Friends made sufficient allowance for the position of the Government. What was their position last Monday when the Prime Minister made his memorable statement? There were only two courses open to the Prime Minister. The one was to fight the battle out with the House of Lords; and the other was to make some arrangement—he would not say compromise—by which the Franchise Bill would be carried. He honestly regretted that the Prime Minister had not elected to fight out the battle; because he believed that by so doing he was certain to have come off victorious, and would have done great good to the country and to himself. But the right hon. Gentleman decided not to take that course; and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not blame him for not doing so. Something had, however, to be done, and those who quarrelled with the Government did not seem to remember the proverb that "Necessity has no law." Necessity drove the Prime Minister to do what he had done; and the necessity, he regretted to say, was the House of Lords, which he hoped some day would be done away with. His hon. Friends, furthermore, did not always seem to remember the change that had come over the political situation. No doubt at the end of last Session the Government said they would not bring in a Redistribution Bill if it were in any way to imperil the Franchise Bill. The Government had stood to that
    300
    ground. They had not receded from it. The Government found that the whole political situation was changed. They had found that the Marquess of Salisbury had become a Radical. As soon as it was found that the Marquess of Salisbury and his Friends were talking about electoral districts and so forth, the Prime Minister saw at once there would be no danger—that the bringing in of the Redistribution Bill now, instead of endangering the Franchise Bill, was the very way to get it carried. He, for one, thought the Government had done the right thing in this matter. He did not want to use any hard word; but it was a little feminine to complain of the Redistribution Bill because it came from the Tories. He was glad to take a good Bill from anybody. He was delighted to find that the Tories wore becoming Radicals, and were going to give a Bill in accordance with the views of the Liberal Leaders. The Government were taking a wise course in moving the adjournment of the House. They could do no good sitting there that week. The Government, however, knew that they stood or fell by the scheme. If the Bill was one which was not acceptable to the Liberal Party below the Gangway, it would go hard with the Government. He imagined they were bound to bring in a Bill to satisfy their own side—it might satisfy the Tories as well; and if the Bill was a good one it would have the hearty support of the Radical Party.
    SIR DONALD CURRIEwished to say a single word to prevent any misapprehension as to the views of the Scotch Members on this question. Ho gave his hearty support to the Government in the efforts they were now making to introduce a good Redistribution Bill; and he believed that their practical way of arriving at a solution of the difficulty would have the approval of the people of Scotland.
    MR. ILLING WORTHsaid, that whatever it was necessary to do with reference to the Redistribution Bill found its justification in what was stated by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). It was an acknowledgment of the supremacy of the House of Lords. He trusted, and indeed believed, that this was the last occasion on which a man occupying the position of the present Prime Minister would find it neces-

    301
    sary to pursue that course which he (Mr. Illingworth) admitted the right hon. Gentleman had been justified in adopting. He would go a step further, and say he did not believe that any other Prime Minister could possibly have taken the course which the right hon. Gentleman had taken at the stage which this controversy had reached without bringing home to his own Party a feeling of the deepest resentment on the part of the Liberals of this country. He admitted the country was justified in continuing its unbroken confidence in the present Prime Minister. It was true he could imagine that if the right hon. Gentleman had been a quarter of a century younger he would, like many men out-of-doors, have rather enjoyed a conflict than otherwise, and might have brought on the final conflict with the House of Lords, which would have put them either out of existence or into a very different position to that which they had occupied in the past. He was glad to say that some satisfaction had been given by the statement of the President of the Local Government Board upon the important question of grouping boroughs. He had been afraid, from qualifications and reservations made by him in speaking a week ago, that the right hon. Gentleman was lending some countenance to what all Liberals must regard as the heresy of severing the urban from the rural voters of the country. Nothing, in his judgment, would be more pernicious than that, besides recognizing a House controlled by land, property, and privilege, they should submit to so monstrous a demand as that the agricultural interest should be separated from the rest of the country, as though their interests were antagonistic. There were many important questions still unsettled on which they had not had full assurances from the Prime Minister. There was the very important question of the sub-division of seats. He confessed he would very much rather that the Prime Minister had taken his "cue" from the Liberal side of the House than from the other side, which, however, he was obliged to recognize on this occasion. There was, however, no misgiving on the part of the Radical Party as to the loyalty of the Prime Minister; and they believed that, in the unusual and extraordinary course he had taken, he was seeking to
    302
    realize for the country at a very early period, not only the Franchise Bill, which the country had approved, but also a Redistribution Bill, which would adequately represent the feelings of the country. He hoped and believed that was the last occasion on which the shaping of a great public measure when the Liberal Party was in power would be in any way committed to their opponents in the other House.
    MR. LABOUCHEREheld that the strong feeling which prevailed in the country against the House of Lords would be increased by the fact that the Prime Minister, backed though he was by a great popular majority, had been compelled to accept recommendations from the Marquess of Salisbury as a condition of the passage of the Franchise Bill. For his own part, when the Redistribution Bill was introduced, he should put everything that was good in it down to the Prime Minister, and everything that was bad in it to the Marquess of Salisbury. Consequently he, and probably other Gentlemen, would not adopt the same attitude in regard to the measure that they had taken up with regard to the Franchise Bill—the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill—but would express their opinions freely as to each particular clause in the Bill; and, whether they got majorities or not, they would move clauses to make the Bill more Radical than it was.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—EXECUTION OF JOSEPH POOLE.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. O'BRIEN,who rose, amid considerable interruption, to call attention to the circumstances attending the execution of Joseph Poole for the murder of a man named Kenny beneath the railway arch at Seville Place, Dublin, on the night of the 4th of July, 1882, said, he was not surprised, judging from the reception he had met with, that English Members did not like to be so often reminded of the scandals which existed in the Irish administration of justice. They had only to blame themselves and Earl Spencer for persistently setting their faces against inquiry in any shape or form. The English Members might have the power of voting down the Irish Members; but they would not have the

    303
    power of silencing them. He believed that nine-tenths of the Irish people were of opinion that there were guilty secrets connected with the administration, and that this was the reason that all inquiry was refused. He believed that if one-tenth of the charges were made against the English Department a thorough and searching investigation would have been made for the purpose of settling the question one way or other. It would appear, from the evidence which was advanced against Poole by the Crown, that the informer Lamie, who was the principal witness against Poole, had, in his original depositions, given information, not against Poole, but against three other men for conspiring to murder him. The case which had been made out by the Crown was that the murder was the result of a feud between rival sections of the Fenian organization—one called the Council Party and the other the Stephenite Party. The fact was, however, that both Poole and Kenny belonged to the Stephenite Party, and there never was the slightest evidence of enmity between them, but quite the contrary. The conduct of Poole throughout the entire proceedings was shown to be the very reverse of what an assassin would naturally be. It was shown that Poole was drinking in the most friendly manner with the deceased and his friends, and the suggestion that he should accompany Poole came from the deceased himself. Poole was also shown to have been quite unarmed, and there was not the slightest piece of evidence to show he had struck the deceased a blow. There was nothing whatever inconsistent with the theory that Poole ran away, because he was, or believed himself to be, the object of attack. What was more natural than that Kenny, when attacked in the dark, should cry out to the friend who had been with him? What more natural than that Poole, knowing that there was a plot on foot to kill himself, should take to his heels, having no firearms about him? The Crown had laid a good deal of stress on his not having given the alarm to the police, and his beating up Lamie in the middle of the night and proceeding to remove documents from his lodgings. But was that at all surprising? Poole was undoubtedly implicated in a secret society. He would probably prefer to take his chance of
    304
    being hanged rather than give his confederates fresh grounds for suspicion and vengeance against him by having recourse to the police. He knew he would be identified as the last man seen in Kenny's company, and that he would be sure to be arrested. That being so, was it not rather a fact in his favour that he stood his ground himself, knowing that he had nothing to fear from the murder, but that he got the illegal documents out of the way, believing that they would bring quite another charge upon him—a charge of treason—a charge that he knew could be substantiated? But Lamie made another deposition which not merely did not commit, but triumphantly acquitted, Poole. The chain of suspicious circumstances, at all events, was all that the Crown were able to bring against him, and upon that state of the evidence the jury disagreed, a jury of the most select character, composed of the cream of a panel of 200 of the most trusty special jurors in Ireland, after 47 even of these jurors had been told by the Crown to stand by. Lamie was exactly the type of creature whom the Dublin jury in Fitzgerald's case the other day branded as unworthy of belief. He was, on his own confession, a professional informer. He stated—
    "I gave information before I was arrested. When I gave the information I did not know I would he arrested, and did not expect to be."
    Therefore, he was a mercenary witness of the worst type. He admitted also that he was at the head of a plot for blowing up, with dynamite, a houseful of Crown witnesses at Ballybough. No doubt, if the whole truth were out, they would find that he was one of Detective Inspector French's professional battalion of testimony, and that he was engaged in organizing these murders out of the Secret Service Fund, like M'Dermott, who organized the dynamite conspiracy in Cork; Noonan, who was to have arranged the murder of Judge Barry, and the Policeman Woods, who set up as blacksmith and a secret conspirator in Tubbercurry. It was all part of one system—the same inner circle organized by Mr. French and Mr. Jenkinson. The public had as yet only got a vague glimpse of the business, and the Government was doing its best, by refusing inquiry, to keep it dark. It was perfectly possible that if all were known it would turn out that the Phoenix Park

    305
    murders could be traced to the same agency; at any rate, that was the sort of a man on whose evidence Poole's life was taken. Lamie had made two depositions; one, as he had said, was made in the police office against the three men who were charged with conspiring to murder Poole, and that, of course, was made publicly. But on the previous day another statement had been taken secretly in Kilmainham Gaol by Mr. John Adye Curran, who was employed in carrying on these secret Star Chamber inquisitions. This statement, which was the foundation of Lamie's evidence the next day, was set out in full in the brief that was laid before the Crown Counsel. Taken in connection with the circumstances under which they found these two men together in Kenny's house that night, his statement seemed to him to demolish, to annihilate, the theory that Poole was either the murderer of Kenny or the decoy used by the murderers. Then they had the line distinctly drawn between Poole and the murderers. Neither Poole or Lamie could say who they were. All Lamie would say was that "it is likely he knew them afterwards." Was it credible that Poole could have arranged such a plot with men whom he did not even know? Was it credible that he would have gone on such an expedition without a revolver?
    "It wag not Poole that murdered Kenny; he never struck a blow or fired a shot that night."
    That statement was made, not in reference to any charge against Poole, but in reference to a charge against others of compassing the murder of Poole himself. It was, therefore, all the more likely to be reliable, as it could not have been swearing to order, such as there might have been afterwards when Poole was in the dock, and when the object was to convict him. But now came in the most extraordinary sequel of the law. Before the second trial it became a matter of great concern to these officials to patch up the evidence, if possible, with something fresh. What they wanted of all things was some light upon what happened under the railway arch—something that would clinch the fact of Poole's participation in the murder. He would now have to give the House some evidence of their efforts in this direction, and again he would remind hon. Members that he did not offer
    306
    this evidence as conclusive; but, taken in connection with all the other accumulating proofs of the reckless and terrible methods in which the Crown officials organized convictions in Ireland, he said that nothing short of guilty apprehension of the result could account for the unwillingness of the Crown officials to submit these charges once for all to a searching and independent inquiry. In Poole's statement in the dock denying his guilt, reference was made to Lizzie Kearns, the sweetheart of Grundy, who was at the time in prison. Poole, of course, did not know what was happening in Clonmel Gaol, where Grundy was; but the moment Grundy's sentence expired, in September last, he made a statutory declaration corroborating in a remarkable way the attempt of the police to extract false evidence from this girl, and showed how Mr. Mallon, of the defective force, had visited him in gaol, and tried to force him to swear against Poole. To that extraordinary statement came a still more extraordinary reply from Mr. Mallon in the form of a communique to The Evening Mail, which he had never repudiated, and which bore all the marks of official inspiration, and in which the facts were practically admitted. It would be only weakening the effect of the facts he had laid before the House to comment upon them until they knew what explanation the Crown could offer of them, if they could offer any. He had told them of what a flimsy well of suspicion the Crown case was formed. The Crown knew and confessed that Poole was himself under sentence of death, and that several attempts were made to murder him. They accused him of murdering Kenny, because he was found in his company in Kenny's own house, visible to all the world, and because Kenny, of his own motion, volunteered to accompany him a bit of the way home. The Crown suppressed the critical and vital statements of their own informer—that Poole was unarmed that night; that he never fired a shot or struck a blow at Kenny; and that he did not even know who the men were who rushed at them under the railway arch. Even with these statements concealed from them a Prevention of Crime Act jury refused to convict upon the evidence. They had the Crown detectives and the Crown Solicitor tempting the convicted prisoner in Clonmel

    307
    Gaol to supply the missing link for their bringing him up to Dublin between the first and second trials, dangling his liberty and a fortune with his sweetheart before his eyes, and making the desperate effort to get a conviction by hook or crook. A conviction they got, after packing a second jury in a manner so shameless that when they contrasted their challenges in that case with their absence of challenges in the Cornwall case, he wondered the Law Officers of the Crown did not blush for shame when they assured that House that there was no such thing as jury-packing in Ireland. Poole was hanged. To the hour of his death he protested his absolute innocence of the murder. The chaplain of the prison and the good Sister of Charity, an English lady, who attended him every day after his sentence, were as convinced as they were of their own existence that he was hanged in the wrong—that he was judicially murdered; and unless these horrible suspicions, amounting almost to certainties, were tested by honest and open investigation, he believed that man's blood would be upon those who organized his murder, and upon those who might make themselves assenting parties to it. What took Mallon into a convict prison at all touting for evidence? Would the Solicitor General for Ireland honestly tell the House that night whether or not it was to be an understood maxim of Government in Ireland that convicted prisoners and convicted murderers were to be tempted to swear themselves out of penal servitude whenever the Crown were in want of evidence to hound down apolitical opponent? Let him answer that candidly, and let the House approve of it, if they liked, by an honest vote; but if that was not his position let him explain on what principle his detectives went around to the convict prisons to fish out Delaney, the murderer, and Tubridy, the moonlighter, or upon what principle Mallon had a secret interview in the gaol, and Mr. George Bolton a secret interview in the cell, with a convicted prisoner, with the view of making him a witness against Poole at the vital moment when the jury had just refused to convict on the evidence as it stood.
    MR. DEASYcommented on the empty appearance of the House, and particularly of the Benches on the Ministerial side.
    308
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. DEASY,continuing, said, it was a matter of great difficulty for him to understand how the jury in this case could have returned a verdict against Poole on the evidence which had been submitted to them. He hoped they would have some explanation of the way this trial had been managed from the present Chief Secretary, because he appeared to have taken Mr. Bolton specially under his protection. In the first trial 25 jurors had been challenged, and in the second 47, and they were all of the same religious persuasion—namely, Roman Catholics. He did not know what explanation would be given of that, or of the fact that in the trial of Cornwall not one juror was challenged. It was a striking and significant fact that when Mr. Mallon had failed the services of Mr. Bolton were called into requisition; and he saw that unfortunate man Grundy, who had been brought up specially from Clonmel, and was tempted with a bribe of £500 to give the necessary evidence, and that in addition to the money reward he would be in a position to marry his sweetheart. The Irish people would insist on bringing these matters before the House so long as justice was administered in Ireland in the way it was at present administered. It was useless for the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland to say, as he supposed he would say in reply, that the granting an inquiry would tend to destroy public confidence in the administration of justice in Ireland. He therefore hoped that the present Chief Secretary would himself offer some explanation of the matter.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the hon. Member for Mallow had dealt with two matters of an entirely different character. He had asked the House to review the trial of Joseph Poole; and, secondly, he had brought forward an alleged attempt to induce a person named Grundy to give evidence upon that trial; but, as that alleged attempt did not succeed, it could not be said to have affected the trial. In being asked to review the evidence upon which Poole was found guilty, the House was in a very different position from that of the

    309
    jury who heard the evidence, and came to the conclusion that he was the murderer of Kenny. The hon. Member had referred to the constitution of the jury, and said that on the first trial 47 persons were ordered to stand by; but the exact number was 32, including Protestants as well as Catholics. He should be sorry to think that either Catholics or Protestants would not be capable of giving a just verdict in the case of the murder of a dock labourer. He would now give an outline of the evidence for the Crown. That evidence showed that this man Kenny was murdered under a railway arch about half-past 12 o'clock at night. He received four pistol-shots, and eight stabs of a chisel. It was not necessary in point of law, nor was there any evidence, to show that Poole either shot or stabbed the man. But the evidence did show that close on 12 o'clock on the night in question Poole went with the murdered man to the house of the latter—that he lured him out; that he accompanied him; and that a short time afterwards the man was murdered. The suggestion on the part of the prisoner was that Poole was the man whom it was intended to murder; and would anyone suppose that four shots were fired and eight stabs of a chisel given to the wrong man after he had cried out "Joe, Joe?" They had the startling fact that at half-past 12 o'clock at night there were lying in wait several men, and that beyond doubt those men were waiting for someone. Was it not obvious that they were waiting for the man they murdered. Every argument which had been presented that night by the hon. Member was addressed to the jury by Poole's counsel, with, at all events, as much force as the hon. Member had employed. No one could for a moment doubt that Poole was the murderer of Kenny. Either Poole or Kenny was the person whom it was intended to murder; and the jury were not very wrong in coming to the conclusion that it was not the man who was appealed to to save the other. It was perfectly true that one of the witnesses, Mrs. Kelly, with whom Kenny lodged, stated that Kenny was ready to go with Poole. [Mr. O'BRIEN: And so did his wife.] That was one of the important points laid before the jury. The evidence showed that Poole was the last man seen in the murdered man's company.
    310
    The next witness was a man named Lamie, the brother-in-law of Poole, and it was suggested that he wilfully gave false evidence to hang his own brother-in-law. This man proved that they were members of the same Fenian circle, and, further, that before the murder Poole told him that Kenny had betrayed the secrets of the society and was to be shot. Anyone who knew anything of the unfortunate history of Ireland at the time must know that that was one of the reasons why many a man lost his life. Lamie also proved that on the night of the murder Poole came to him and told him that Kenny was dead, and described the manner in which the deed had been committed by shots and stabs. Then Poole told him that he wanted to go to his lodgings to remove some papers. Hon. Members said that the reason of that was because he was a member of a secret society. But was it the act of an innocent man? It was admitted by the hon. Member for Mallow that they both went to remove the papers. Upon evidence being given that Lamie and Poole went to the house of a man named Francis Grundy and breakfasted there, and that Lamie, Poole, and Grundy the same day visited the treasurer of the circle of which they were Members and received some money from him, the second jury came to the conclusion that Poole was not an innocent man; that he was not the man intended to be murdered; and that he was the person who lured Kenny to the place where, beyond all doubt, some men were waiting to commit the crime. He contended that the man intended to be murdered was the man who was murdered. With regard to the question as to whether the man Grundy was waited upon by any person when in prison, he might say that it could not have affected the evidence upon which the jury arrived at their verdict, because Grundy was not examined. Kenny, the murdered man, was buried on the 6th of July, 1882. On that day, after the funeral, three men, one of whom was Grundy, went to the house of the widow, who had given evidence at the inquest the day before, which went to implicate some of the men under arrest, and threatened that if she gave any information on the subject she would be laid beside her husband. For that cowardly attempt to intimidate the woman—

    311
    [Several Irish MEMBERS: Hear, hear!]—he was glad to hear hon. Members approve that definition—for that cowardly attempt to intimidate the widow Kenny, Grundy and the two other men were convicted on the 19th of August. After the conviction of these men Lamie gave evidence to the effect that he visited Grundy's house in company with Poole, between 5 and 6 o'clock on the morning in question. Having given that evidence, the Attorney General of the day, Mr. Johnson, came to the conclusion that Lamie was a tainted witness, and that his evidence should, in the interests of justice, be inquired into in the interval between the two trials. That direction having been given, Mr. Bolton was bound to obey it. Grundy was brought up to Kilmainham, and was there seen by Mr. Bolton for a few minutes, who asked him whether Lamie and Poole visited his house as Lamie had said. The prisoner replied that he refused to give any information, and the interview ended at once, and he was sent back to Clonmel Gaol. It had never been suggested that Grundy had taken any part in the murder, and it was impossible that he should be asked to give false evidence. What was wanted was that Mr. Bolton should test the evidence given by Lamie, and ascertain whether he was telling the truth. Grundy had stated that three persons, Mr. Mallon, Mr. Simmonds, and Mr. Bolton, asked him to give false evidence in order to prove that Poole committed the murder under the arch. It was impossible that Grundy could have been asked to give such evidence, which wholly unnecessary, and which was never a part of the evidence of the prosecution. Mr. Mallon had no connection whatever with the trial of Poole. He was then engaged in procuring evidence about the terrible Phœnix Park murders, and, thinking Grundy might throw some light upon them, Mr. Mallon saw him in gaol; but Mr. Mallon did not refer to Poole's case, and the only person who did refer to it was Grundy himself, who made a complaint that he, an innocent man, had been convicted wrongly for intimidating a witness, and that he had nothing to do with Kenny's murder. He told Mr. Mallon to ask Lizzie Kearns about it. Mr. Mallon did ask Lizzie Kearns, and went back to Grundy and told him he was satisfied he had no hand, act, or
    312
    part in the murder of Kenny. There was no doubt that Mr. Mallon, who was undoubtedly instrumental in bringing to justice some of the greatest malefactors in Ireland, was unpopular with some persons. He had been concerned in the Phoenix Park murder investigation. He denied that Mr. Mallon had published a statement in the newspapers—some person had taken the liberty of interviewing him, and had put a number of comments of his own upon the case. He thought it was very regrettable that such a course should be taken. Mr. Bolton also, the moment that this declaration was printed, had made a statement to the same effect. Did the House suppose that a man of the character of Grundy was to be believed against the statements of these gentlemen, and was the House now to sit in judgment on the verdict of a jury given a year ago? No one who valued evidence in the slightest degree could suppose that Grundy was a man whose statement, brought forward in the circumstances in which it had been, could have the slightest credit. All the arguments which had been advanced that night were put forward by the able counsel who defended the prisoner.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he knew nothing of the facts of the case, but had listened with the greatest interest to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland; and he was quite sure that the case on the other side had been most ably put before the House. But he had also listened to it with the greatest possible pain, because he thought that it was his duty to protest against criminal cases being argued in that House as if before a jury. The House of Commons was not a Court of Criminal Appeal, and nothing would have induced him to speak on this case had he not felt it his duty to make a protest in the strongest possible terms against its being made one. There were two ways in which persons who objected to the decision of a Judge and a jury might have the matter set right. In the first place, they might go to such Court of Appeal as the law provided; and, in the second place, if the law had not provided a sufficient appeal, they might appeal to the Crown, to the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, or to the Secretary of State in England. But when a case had been

    313
    properly tried and heard before the appointed tribunal, there was only one Constitutional way in which to attac the Judge in that House, and that was by an Address to the Crown to remove him from the Bench if his conduct was complained of. That was a point of the Constitution of this country which could not be too strongly enforced; and he would recommend the observation to the notice of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan). In the first place, it threw the responsibility on the Judge; and the House ought not to interfere with any Judge, unless upon the Motion of a person who was ready to come forward in that way. That was why he had said that he had listened with pain to the speech which he had heard; and he had also heard with great regret that the hon. Member for Louth, earlier in the evening, had given Notice that he would call attention to a recent judgment of Mr. Justice Manisty. If the hon. Gentleman had anything to say against that Judge let him bring forward a Motion to remove him from the Bench. Another way in which the House of Commons could legitimately interfere was when the Advisers of the Crown had failed in their duty. That was a direct attack upon the Lord Lieutenant, or the Secretary of State, as the case might be. If they had advised the Crown wrongly, let the Advisers of the Crown be attacked by Motion before the House; but to bring the matter forward upon a mere Motion for Adjournment was of no use at all. Those, he contended, were the only two functions in which the House could properly deal in criminal cases; and those who departed from this principle were invading the first principles of the Constitution, and were invading also the liberty of the subject. When religious or political questions came to the front, and feelings ran high upon such questions, the greatest possible safeguard they could have from the tyranny of a majority of the House was an absolute dependence upon a Judge and a jury. That was a liberty which every other country in the world had sought to gain, and which no other country had attained. He appealed to hon. Members not to attack a Judge except in the only Constitutional way—that was to say, unless they were prepared to attack him by Motion. If they were not, what was the use of all these arguments?
    314
    They were brought forward at a time when no vote could be taken upon them. The Question before the House was its adjournment, and no decision could be taken upon the question that had now been raised. The House of Commons could never, by any possibility, be made a Court of Appeal in criminal cases; if it was, farewell to the liberty of the subject. If any remedy for such cases was applied, let it be in the form of a Court of Criminal Appeal. That was not now the law; whether it would be was not for him now to discuss. But he would appeal to hon. Members below the Gangway, if they wished to stand up for the liberties of their country, to do so by striving their best for the maintenance of trial by jury, by seeing that proper Judges were appointed, that juries were properly struck, and let them help, if they thought fit, in legislating for a Court of Criminal Appeal. If not, it was in their power to get redress; but it was not for them to come forward and, by the un-Constitutional attempts they had made use of, ask the House of Commons to review a decision given in a Court of Law. If a Judge was to be attacked, he ought to be attacked directly in a proper Constitutional manner.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that while there could be no exception taken as to the soundness of the general views he had put forward, he (Mr. Sexton) must confess that he was at a loss to understand the line of argument pursued by the previous speaker (Sir R. Assheton Cross). His (Mr. Sexton's) reply to it was that, as to their not being able to arrive at any decision upon the matter, they could—that was, all who thought Joseph Poole had been unjustly hanged—vote against the adjournment. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had, at the outset, confessed, with almost childlike simplicity and frankness, his ignorance of the case. This was a singular qualification for one who opposed the Motion. If he was always as ready to accept the speech of the Representatives of the Crown, he (Mr. Sexton) could assure him that the Crown officials would be very glad indeed to get his name upon the Crimes Act panel in Dublin. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the House of Commons could not be made a Court of Criminal Appeal, he (Mr. Sexton) would join issue with him upon that

    315
    point. He would remind him of a recent case, that of Bryan Kilmartin, whose case he (Mr. Sexton) had brought under the attention of the House. Bryan Kilmartin was in Chatham Convict Prison, sentenced to confinement for life; and yet, after debate in that House, the Crown was compelled to institute a fresh inquiry into the case which, as it resulted in proving the poor man's innocence, they allowed him to walk out of prison a free man. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, in his speech, had pleaded the lapse of time since the conviction of Poole. He (Mr. Sexton) would ask, were the claims of justice to be denied because of the lapse of time? If that was the case, what was to be said of the action of the Crown with reference to Edmund Galley, who was sent into penal servitude by an English Judge? Forty years had passed before the Government of England took a single step to do him justice. In the face of these facts, could the hon. and learned Gentleman urge the lapse of one year as a reason why silence should be maintained upon the subject, as to whether Joseph Poole was justly or unjustly hanged? The hon. and learned Gentleman had contended that there was no evidence in his favour. The very nature of the case prevented there being any such evidence. Poole and the murdered man Kenny were personal friends and members of the same circle in political conspiracy. The members of another secret circle in Dublin formed a plot to murder Joseph Poole, and he only escaped by a fortunate chance. Kenny was, however, pursued and killed by the same circle. Referring to the circumstances of the murder, he said that Poole and Kenny, having been drinking at various public-houses, passed under a dark archway at half-past 11, on their way to Kenny's house. Had it been Poole's object to murder Kenny, he could then have effected it without difficulty. On the contrary, he accompanied Kenny to his house, and went into the presence of his wife. He thus exposed himself to attention and suspicion as being the last man in the murdered man's company. Poole then left to go home, and Kenny insisted ongoing a part of his way with him. The evidence showed that there was not a single effort made by Poole to lure Kenny out. When again under the dark archway, a
    316
    rush was made upon them by a number of men armed with knives and revolvers; Kenny was struck down, and Poole ran away. One witness, Lamie, in his first deposition, made before suspicion was directed to anyone, swore that Poole had no arms upon him that night, and that he neither struck a blow, nor fired a shot. If Poole had left the archway with the consciousness that he had been guilty of this murder, he would have taken himself off altogether, instead of merely endeavouring to get rid of papers that implicated him in a political offence. In fact, all the arguments, inferences, and probabilities involved throughout the Poole case pointed to one irresistible conclusion, and that was the unquestionable innocence of Poole. At the time of his trial, however, a cry had arisen for blood in England, and many officials in Ireland were desirous of obtaining money and fame by their conduct of such cases. He strongly condemned the system by which agents of police, like Mr. Mallon, or such men as George Bolton, should crawl into the cells of convicted prisoners, who were helpless and at their mercy, and endeavour to induce them to swear away the liberties of persons outside. As days went by the Irish Administration appeared to be depriving themselves of any right to take a moral standard at all. The agent of the police had told the sweetheart of Grundy that if she could get the latter to swear that Poole had committed the murder, her sweetheart would be released, and they would receive money enough to get married upon. Was that the fair way of obtaining evidence against an accused person? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would have them believe that the visit to Clonmel by the police to Grundy was in order, forsooth, to see if he could discredit the evidence of their own witnesses. But was it to be said that such a proceeding was to be tolerated as that a bribe of £500 was to be offered by an agent of the Crown for false evidence; that the greatest and most terrible inducements were held out to a man and to a woman to swear up to the mark, and that, when all this failed, Catholic jurors should be indiscriminately ordered to stand aside? Mr. George Bolton, who had made the effort to induce this unfortunate man Grundy to give evidence, was that same

    317
    George Bolton whose character was so well known in the House, whose doings were so notorious, who had received from Judge Barry the most scathing indictment that ever any public official had been subjected to—that same George Bolton who, for weeks, occupied himself trying to get Thomas Nolan to swear against his father, a man who, notwithstanding all even George Bolton could do, was ultimately admitted to be innocent. ["Oh, oh!"] Was he incapable of conduct such as this? The well-spring and fountain of the miserable Tubbercurry prosecution also was Crown corruption. He asked a few days ago, whether it was true if that man who masqueraded as a blacksmith in the forge at Tubbercurry was the policeman Woods; whether the Crown had supplied that man with money, enabled him to rent a forge, and used him as a means of seducing thoughtless young men in the district into illegal enterprizes? He was assured that the policeman masqueraded as a blacksmith, and swore in youths into illegal societies; and they all knew that a number of firearms were found by the police concealed in that forge, placed there, no doubt, by the policeman himself; but they could get no satisfactory answer from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite on the point; but he would give due notice that a straightforward answer on the point would be insisted on. The new Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had given an equivocal answer, the sort of answer which he was now learning how to make, and in which, if he continued in his Office, he would soon become a proficient. The right hon. Gentleman replied that, indeed, the Public Service prevented his giving any answer. Did the Public Service require that policemen and police agents should go down and induce young men to illegal acts, and then make them suffer? This man Woods, otherwise Bartley, was still in the police service as a detective. Of course, it was only reasonable that Mr. George Bolton and. his colleagues should deny these allegations; but they could not forget that the charges that had already been proved against that gentleman were too numerous to render doubt admissible. He (Mr. Sexton) was convinced that there were men in the Public Service in Ireland who, when they once
    318
    set their hearts on a conviction, whether for a capital or for a minor offence, would pause at nothing short of achievement. The case of Poole was but another instance of the horrible effects of the system whereby innocent men were done to death in Ireland; and the refusal of the Government to grant inquiry was but another proof of the craven fear of exposure, and ruin, and public execration which haunted the minds of certain Crown officials in Ireland.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the question before the House was one of the very greatest importance; and he wished the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would give the discussion his attention. He (Mr. Leamy) wished to know whether the evidence of Lamie, taken at the secret inquiry, and which appeared in the Crown brief, was furnished to the prisoner's counsel? That was a point which ought to be cleared up. The account of the interview between Mr. Mallon and the correspondent of The Evening Mail had never been contradicted—that Mr. Mallon stated that the guilty persons had long since gone away; that it had been elicited that Kenny was to be assassinated before he met Poole at all, and other statements. Significant and even startling as were the matters in that interview, Mallon had never contradicted the accuracy of the report which was written by the representative of a paper which was a firm and consistent supporter of the Executive so long as the latter attacked the people. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had defended Mr. Bolton, and not only that, but an English gentleman was sent over to Ireland to act as Chief Secretary, and found that he had to support a man whom the whole of the country believed to be a blackguard. He (Mr. Leamy) was convinced no honest man in Ireland would believe a word from George Bolton. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland himself, he was certain, did not believe him. The Lord Lieutenant knew he was a scoundrel.
    MR.CALLAN: Arcades ambo. ["Order, order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: It appears to me, from what I heard, that the hon. Member for Louth has made use of an expression which is not in Order.
    MR. CALLAN: I said tantamount to this—that the Lord Lieutenant and

    319
    George Bolton were both Crown officials.
    MR. SPEAKER: It was an irregular expression, and I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
    MR. CALLAN: I have nothing to withdraw. I merely, as regarded Mr. Bolton and the Lord Lieutenant, used the expression Arcades ambo, meaning that they were both Crown officials.
    MR. LEAMY,resuming, said, that if the law was to have a proper effect in any country, the people must believe that it was properly administered. In Ireland, however, the people could not have any faith in the administration of justice. They were not now seeking to review this particular trial, but to have an inquiry instituted into the mode in which the Criminal Law was administered in Ireland. By refusing such an inquiry the Government convinced the people of Ireland that from that House no justice would come.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that there was much to be said in favour of the course pursued by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland; for he (Mr. Newdegate) was one of those who did not think that Ireland was well governed. But while he was in favour of justice being done to Ireland, he was also in favour of justice being done to the House. He thought, therefore, that hon. Members should conform to the customs of the House, and should not bring forward matters which required confirmation by evidence without affording the House an opportunity of obtaining evidence to test the truth of the allegations that were made. The House had great reason to complain of these proceedings. While he was ready to admit that Ireland had not been well governed for over 50 years, he must warn hon. Members that if they continued to submit to them it would lose the respect of Protestants as well as of Catholics. If the House did not insist on fair opportunities of testing the conduct of Judicial Courts in Ireland it would afford ground for discontent to the people of that country. What were the means? That the House should refuse to entertain any allegations against the Courts without due Notice. Nobody could read the pages of Questions answered daily without seeing that they involved not only the Administration of Ireland, but also the conduct of the Courts of Law. In the United States
    320
    now nothing was more marked than the determination of Congress that it would deliver the Supreme Court and all the Courts from the interference of Congress. The speeches that had been made induced him to appeal to the Government to attend to the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Home Secretary, and to insist that in neither House of Parliament should the proceedings of the Courts of Law be reviewed, except with full Notice and in a regular and formal manner.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that, in opposition to the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Newdegate), he maintained that it was one of the functions of the House of Commons to impeach, and, if necessary, to remove an obnoxious Judge from the Bench. The belief of the people in Ireland was that the Government refused inquiry in these cases because they were conscious that everything had not been straightforward in the conduct of them.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that Queen's County, which he had the honour to represent, would not only compare with any county in Ireland in regard to the peaceable demeanour and orderly character of its inhabitants, but it also favourably contrasted with any single county in England in every respect—moral, social, and political. There existed there absolutely no trace of any disorder or crime which the Law Officers of the Crown could put their finger on as a matter of reasonable complaint. Yet, in the quietest possible portion of that county the Government had chosen to put on the people an extra police force, as if the population were exceptionally turbulent. They had saddled the people with that most invidious, harassing, and unjust of taxes —the Police Tax; and they had enforced it in the most unfeeling and insulting manner. In two different districts of the county a large number of persons had been called upon to pay that odious and unjustifiable tax, and the people, he was glad to say, had resisted it. Those magistrates, who really knew the circumstances of the county, having lived in it four years, were as indignant about that iniquitous impost as the people who were brought before them for non-payment of it, and had expressed the strongest condemnation of it; in some instances, devising every excuse in their

    321
    power to avoid passing sentences, which they knew to be unjust, against poor men, from whom sums of 1s. 6d., or, in some cases, 1½d., were sought to be recovered by legal process. The Government were unable to obtain from the Resident Justices of the Peace of those parts of the county anything to justify their stupid, infatuated, and brutal conduct, which was driving the people into antagonism to the Administration of Ireland, and making them feel more than ever they did that it was something alien to them. The Government, in fact, were obliged to fall back on the whisperings of a single Resident Magistrate and a single police officer. Before they got Home Rule, no doubt, they would have to fight; but if they really wanted something to stimulate the people in favour of that cause, its advocates could not wish for anything better than the wanton and tyrannical action of the Irish Executive in that matter. He wished to know whether the Government intended to continue this impost; and whether it was the intention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to cause inquiry to be made as to the levying of this tax in the Queen's County?
    MR. KENNYsaid, he rose to call attention to the position of Mr. Clifford Lloyd as a Resident Magistrate of Ireland. In connection with the matter, he wished to point out that that gentleman obtained leave of absence for the purpose of serving the Egyptian Government, and that, while he was placed at the head of the Police Department in Cairo, he still retained his normal position as a Resident Magistrate of Ireland. Although the then Chief Secretary for Ireland had been pressed again and again to define Mr. Lloyd's position the point had been evaded. Mr. Clifford Lloyd returned to this Country some time ago from Egypt—returned, he might say, in absolute disgrace, because he could not get on with the officials in Egypt. In fact, he had left Egypt because the officials who served the Khedive refused to continue in office if he was maintained in his position. He had returned to London, and had been reinstated as a Resident Magistrate of Ireland, and placed in receipt of pay and allowances as such, although he had been absent from the country for 15 months. This was a subject, he thought, which re-
    322
    quired an explanation from the Chief Secretary for Ireland. As regarded the present position of the extra police tax, which in the County Clare had been raised—owing to the former action of Mr. Clifford Lloyd—to 1s. 7d. per head of the population, whereas in England the entire cost of the Police Force was only 2s. 6d. per head of the population, he thought they required some explanation from the Irish Law Officers, especially as to the manner in which it was adjusted; because it seemed to him that it was exacted in a manner most likely to give offence. Certain classes of persons were exempted from it on account of their social position, or on account of their influence with the Lord Lieutenant; and the whole pressure of it was brought to bear upon those who could least afford to bear it.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I do not wish to occupy the House very long; but it will be expected of me that I should answer two or three questions which have been addressed to me. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman who last spoke (Mr. Kenny), in reference to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, I have only to say that I have nothing to add to what I have already stated in answer to Questions. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was allowed to leave for Egypt, but without pay from the British Government. His Egyptian connection lasted until the 1st of September of this year, when he reverted to his former position of Resident Magistrate. Since then, down to the present time, he has been on leave with pay. If I at any time used the expression, which I do not think I did, for I am usually very careful in these matters, "with pay and allowances," I am not sure that I was justified in so doing. [Mr. KENNY: It appeared in the newspapers.] I cannot hold myself responsible for what appears in the newspapers. I am more acquainted with the regulations of ordinary magistrates than with those which affect Resident Magistrates; but my impression is, that Mr. Clifford. Lloyd does not receive anything like the full allowances of a Resident Magistrate, although he receives the pay. He was granted leave for three months, which will expire at the end of the present month. The hon. Member asks me to give an assurance that Mr. Clifford Lloyd, at the termination of his leave of absence, will

    323
    not be sent back to Ireland; but I can give no such assurance. I can give no answer "Aye" or "No" to the inquiry, as the Government have not yet decided what to do with him. As I have already said, his leave will naturally expire at the end of this month; but there is no reason why it should not be continued a little longer, if necessary, in order to give the Government time to decide as to his future position. With regard to extra police, the cost of which forms a burden on the shoulders of the inhabitants of Queen's County, and of which the hon. Member for that county (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) complained with, a warmth that I can perfectly appreciate and understand, seeing that he was speaking on behalf of his constituents, I wish to say this—and I am sorry he is not present to hear my answer to the question he so pointedly addressed to me—no one would be more pleased than myself, no one would be more pleased than the Irish Executive would be, if this police tax could be modified or taken off. The hon. Member said there was no need for these extra police in Queen's County, and that the Government knew it. That was a very strong thing to say; and the hon. Member, of course, can have no real ground for saying it, because he does not know the information we possess. The fact is, we should be most happy to remove the tax at the first moment possible; but even if it became more and more apparent that it was possible, it would be impossible to take any sudden or rapid step in the matter.
    MR. PAENELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to tell us the Statute under which these police are sent to the Queen's County?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Under the Prevention of Crimes Act. With regard to the particular place to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) referred, in answer to the Question he put to me the other day, I said—not what he imagines I said, that there were no actual offences committed in the district, but that there was no actual outrage, by which I meant no open crime or disorder. There has, however, been a great deal of what may be technically called outrage—namely, intimidation. In many parts of the Queen's County there is, we have reason to believe, a very open and persistent
    324
    and stern system of intimidation going on; and if there were nothing worse than that in many parts of the county, it would be necessary to maintain the measures which have been adopted. I cannot follow the hon. Member into the question of particular districts; but, had he been here, I should have been glad to assure him that the fullest information is constantly sought by the Government in regard to the state of localities which are subjected to the presence of extra police, and that I will endeavour, and the Government will endeavour, to obtain fresh and even fuller reports with regard to them, in order that our action may be guided by the most accurate information we can get. The hon. Member mentioned the small sums certain small occupiers are called upon to pay —l½d., and so forth. No doubt, it does sound rather ridiculous to be bringing people up before the Courts to enforce the payment of such small sums; but then their holdings are small, and it must be remembered that the small charge only covers a small space of time, and that if the period for which the tax was due were larger, a larger sum would be demanded. The l½d. is only the proportion which it falls to the lot of these people to pay. But the grievance, if it exists, exists not in the smallness of the sum that is demanded, but in the fact of the tax having to be paid at all. These small taxes are irksome and unpleasant, no doubt; but a larger sum would be still more irksome and unpleasant. I should be glad if the people could be freed from it altogether. If the hon. Member had done me the honour of remaining in his place to hear me, I should have been glad to have assured him that I will, certainly, do all that I can—and I can say for Earl Spencer that he is unceasing in his endeavours to do the same thing—to obtain the very fullest information from the most reliable authorities as to the condition of the districts charged with this tax, and that, so soon as it is found that they can be relieved from the incubus, we shall be most happy to remove it. I think I have now alluded to all the subjects referred to by hon. Members, except the allegation that in one area certain places have been picked out for the imposition of the tax in preference to others. As I understand it, the exemption in the case in question

    325
    was merely the exemption of the particular township in which a certain man lived.
    MR. KENNY: The whole parish in which he lived.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That may be so. The object is to levy the tax as much as possible upon the particular localities that are supposed to be harbouring those concerned in the perpetration of crime, or to be connected with them. But, as to general cases of this kind which may take place through Ireland, I can assure the hon. Member that it has been by no desire of the Government that any exemption has been made in favour of well-to-do people; and where it has been found necessary to impose the tax upon poor districts it is an evil we not only deplore, but would do all in our power to prevent.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reference to the imposition of the extra police tax on a section of the Queen's County, was very instructive, though very unsatisfactory; because, as he (Mr. Parnell) thought he should be able to show the House, it denoted a retrograde movement on the part of the Irish Executive in the matter of police. Shortly before the end of last Session a debate took place in the House on the subject of extra police in Ireland; and they then heard from the then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant exactly the same declarations as those they had heard upon the present occasion from the present Chief Secretary for Ireland with regard to his desire to remove the extra police tax from the Irish counties. During the course of the debate last Session it was also shown that by far the larger proportion of the extra payments for police in Ireland were, at that time, being levied under the Act of Will. IV., and that the levies under the Crimes Act had shrunk to an almost infinitesimal proportion. Well, then, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to-day, showing, as it had shown, that a county like the Queen's County—which at all times in the recent history of Ireland had been an extremely quiet one, and one extremely free from crime—had been chosen for retrograde, action on the part of the Irish Executive—retrograde, inasmuch as levying for extra police under the
    326
    Crimes Act had been almost abandoned last Session by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland—was and ought to be disappointing to Irish Members and to the House. He (Mr. Parnell) submitted that the right hon. Gentleman, in respect of the charge which the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had made, had shown that he had no shadow of defence. He had been asked to say where there was the least shadow of crime and outrage in Queen's County which had necessitated this levy, but had not been able to do so; and there were no details as to other Irish counties. Might hon. Members fairly assume, or not fairly assume, that the treatment Queen's County—which, at the end of last Session, was exempt from this levy under the Crimes Act—had received was a sample of the treatment which had been meted out during the Recess to other Irish counties? They could not proceed on any assumption of the kind; but they were without information from all parts of Ireland save Queen's County. What they had heard from the hon. Member for that county augured badly for the prospect of the fulfilment of the other promises that the late Chief Secretary for Ireland had made to the Irish Members in one of the last debates of last Session—the very last, he (Mr. Parnell) thought, before the right hon. Gentleman's virtual retirement. If they found that, so far from the counties being relieved from this crushing impost, it had been put upon one of the most quiet districts—a district in which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not been able to find a single case of agrarian outrage—and it could not be to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman that this exceptional tax, which had been, practically, abandoned by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, should be put upon this particular district—if they found that the impost had been inflicted in this way, it augured badly for the alleviation in respect of the tax under the operation of the Act of Will. IV., which had, practically, been promised by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland said there was a great deal of intimidation in parts of the Queen's County, which justified the tax; but he did not tell them what the intimidation was, or who it had been practised by. Had the right hon. Gentle-

    327
    man not turned over the pages of the Crimes Act; did he not know that the Legislature had armed that enactment with the most ample powers for the suppression of intimidation, or even alleged intimidation, by individuals? Could he justify to his own conscience—could he hope, or suppose for a moment, that the House of Commons would justify his contention that it was right—assuming, for the sake of argument, that there had been intimidation—instead of proceeding against the guilty persons under the abundant provisions of the Crimes Act, to levy a tax upon the whole district in punishment for the offence? Should 99 innocent persons suffer in their pockets for the offence of a single individual, in a case where the Executive, admittedly, had the power to proceed against that individual under the Intimidation Clause of the Crimes Act? Why, was it not that provision of the Crimes Act which abundantly enabled the Irish Executive to strike the guilty, and even the innocent if they desired, for intimidation, which enabled them to imprison the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington), and let him lie on a plank bed for four months, because he told the labourers that they had rights under the law as well as the tenant farmers? Why was not this provision used against the persons whom the right hon. Gentleman wished them to believe guilty of intimidation, and why were the poor peasantry in the Queen's County punished by this tax? He had no answer to the question, except that it was the superabundant stupidity and weak malignity which had distinguished the operations of the Irish Executive since May, 1882, when Lord Frederick Cavendish was cruelly and unhappily struck down in the prime of his life, which had pushed them into this in addition to all their other stupid and bungling acts. And now he (Mr. Parnell) had a word or two to say in regard to the case of Joe Poole; and he was glad that the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), by his Motion, had afforded him an opportunity of testifying his belief in regard to the case. He felt proud to bear testimony to the memory of Poole—to the fact of the high heroism with which he had, after being condemned to death for a murder committed in furtherance of a plot for his own destruction, been magnanimous enough to refuse to pur-
    328
    chase safety from the cruel death of hanging by bearing false testimony against persons equally as innocent as himself. He (Mr. Parnell) believed he was not making any mis-statement—in fact, he was conscious that he was not making a mis-statement—when he said that after sentence was pronounced Poole might have purchased safety from the gallows by accepting the suggestions and offers of the Crown officials to bear testimony against persons who were as innocent as he was. Poole refused these offers, and went to his death. No higher heroism had ever been shown, either in the history of Ireland or in the history of any other country, than had been exhibited by Poole. And now as to his (Mr. Parnell's) reasons for considering that Poole was innocent of this crime. Poole's case had attracted his attention from the very first, the circumstances connected with it being so unusual and so extraordinary. In the first place, the unfortunate man was arrested under the Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) on suspicion of having been concerned in the murder, but was discharged. He was arrested a second time on suspicion under the ordinary law, and was discharged; and then a third time he was apprehended; and though between his first and his second arrests and his second and third arrests there were intervals of several months, he never made the slightest attempt to leave the country. This, in itself, would be a very sufficient reason for him (Mr. Parnell) to believe that there must be very strong doubt as to Poole's guilt in the matter. That a man accused of a crime of this kind—a terrible, and abominable, and cold-blooded crime—a man against whom there was such a primâ facie case as to enable him to be arrested twice, should on neither occasion attempt to fly the country, was sufficient to justify the strongest belief in his innocence. They were entitled to start with that strong presumption; but, apart from that presumption, which it was open for anyone who had had an opportunity of reading the newspapers to arrive at, they had further light thrown on the question of Poole's guilt by the evidence the Crown extracted in the course of the different judicial proceedings which took place afterwards under the Crimes Act in regard to other cases. It was sworn that

    329
    there existed in Dublin two secret Associations which were in rivalry with each other. They were said to be the Council Party and the Stephenite Party. Poole and Kenny—the man for whose murder Poole was hanged—were both sworn by witnesses for the Crown to have been members of the Stephenite Party. It was also sworn that in connection with the Stephenite Party there was no Vigilance Association—namely, as it appeared from the evidence, an Association for the purpose of punishing traitors or recreant members. It was the case for the Crown that Poole had decoyed Kenny to his murder as a consequence of a decree of the Vigilance Association of the Stephenite Party. It was sworn that there was a Vigilance Association connected with the Council Party, and that that Association had formed a plot to murder Poole, and to do away with Kenny also. These two men were to be murdered because they had left the Council Party and joined the other secret Association—the Stephenite Party. But, more than that, so impressed at one time were the Crown with the strength of the evidence in this direction, that they actually arrested more than one man and charged them with conspiracy to murder several persons whom it was alleged had belonged to the Council Party. This went on for some time. Poole was twice arrested, and twice released; but not the slightest attempt was made by him to leave the country. He simply returned to his occupation, which was that of a tailor—an humble occupation, but still an honourable and respectable one. After a time the Crown got other evidence—the evidence of a man named Lamie, who was induced—under whose influence they could not now tell—to go a little further in the direction of implicating Poole; and to such an extent did Lamie go that the Crown felt themselves in a position to indict Poole for the murder of Kenny. Well, what was the real case against Poole for the murder of Kenny? It was simply that he had accompanied Kenny to his home on the night of the murder, and that Kenny, as a sort of afterthought, had followed Poole out of the house; that Poole had wished Kenny good-night, and was going away alone, when Kenny followed, offering to see him a portion of the way home; that Poole said, "No,
    330
    you need not come out, I can get home very well by myself;" but that Kenny insisted on going with him, and was murdered within 100 yards or 200 yards of his own door. Well, he (Mr. Parnell) would ask anyone whether it was likely, if Poole had been the decoyer of Kenny, he would have taken steps to induce him to go out with him from his (Kenny's) own house, after the two had gone there together, so bringing the murdered man in a position to be murdered by the party who were lying in wait for him? And, before this, he would ask whether it was not likely that Poole, if he had been cognizant of the presence of this party lying in wait, would not have led Kenny into the ambush before going with him to his house? Would the murderer have taken his victim home, have wished him good-night, and then have attempted to dissuade him from accompanying him back into the street where, according to the theory of the Crown, he wished to bring him? It was obvious, it was manifest, that the action of Poole in this particular was not the action of an assassin, or of a man who was accessory to a murder. But there was a great deal more than this. From the evidence of Lamie it was evident that he was a sort of hanger-on of the two secret organizations; that probably both of them—and ultimately, no doubt, with good reason—suspected him, and that he only got into the outer secrets of either organization. From the evidence of this man given in the depositions, it was evident that there was a conspiracy on foot, of which Lamie had some inkling, to take away the life of Kenny as well as the life of Poole on the part of the Council Party. It was, therefore, absurd to suppose that this conspiracy could have been suddenly changed from a conspiracy by the Council Party into a conspiracy by the Stephenite Party for the destruction of Kenny's life. But, however that might be, the fact remained that of all the slender evidence upon which men had been convicted and sentenced to death, or sentenced to penal servitude, or sentenced to imprisonment, during the last four years of the infamous misgovernment of Ireland by England, the evidence upon which Poole was sentenced would stand out the most conspicuous example. He (Mr. Parnell) was convinced that if Joe Poole came to be tried now, after the debate on the

    331
    Maamtrasna murders, so far from being found guilty, even by the jury who did find that verdict, they would unanimously acquit him. What were the circumstances at the time of Poole's trial? Why, it was represented that there was a terrible conspiracy in Dublin to take away the lives of the Castle officials. It was supposed that Poole was in that conspiracy; but at that time a considerable volume of the evidence which had been taken privately on behalf of the Crown was not in the possession of those who defended the prisoner, and the House would be able to judge whether that evidence should not have been in the possession of the solicitor for the defence. So far as they could judge from the evidence which had come into their hands, and which now saw light for the first time, they (the Irish Members) felt convinced that, so far from Poole having had anything to do with the murder of Kenny, he was actually Kenny's friend on the night in question, and only saved his own life by flight from Kenny's side, when Kenny was attacked. As a matter of fact, Kenny fell a victim to a plot which was intended for the destruction of Poole. These were matters which, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had said, ought to be investigated. It could not be maintained that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), in bringing this matter before the House to-night, had any intention—in fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) would, no doubt, be one of the first to admit that he had no intention—of taking the Government by surprise. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew that this subject was going to be brought forward. He had had ample notice of it—notice of it from night to night for several weeks. It had appeared on the Notice Paper of the House, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had had ample time to make himself acquainted with all the facts of the case.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that, as it was stated that this matter appeared on the Notice Paper, he wished to remark that it did not appear on the Paper for that night. He had ascertained that fact. No doubt the hon. Member for the City of Cork would forgive him for the interruption.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the hon. Gentleman's statement was perfectly correct. The Notice had been on the Paper for several nights; but it did not appear on the Paper that night. He (Mr. Parnell) was observing, when the hon. Member rose to correct him, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had had Notice that the question was to brought on; therefore the right hon. Gentleman, so far as he was concerned, and the Government, so far as they were concerned, were not taken by surprise. They could not plead that they had not had the necessary time for preparing themselves with information. No doubt, the subject should be brought forward after full and formal Notice to the House; and he trusted his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) would give such Notice—Notice of his intention to bring forward a Motion either during the present Sitting, or during the adjourned Session, if it should be an adjourned Session, or in the future coming Session, if it should be a future coming Session. Such a Notice would give not only the Government, but his (Mr. Parnell's) hon. Friends and himself, an opportunity of going more fully into the case, and of making its merits more apparent to the House than they had been able to do on the present occasion. He believed it was a question which, without impugning the conduct of the Judge who tried the case—Mr. Justice Murphy—would show, when thoroughly gone into, that the law had been unduly strained against Poole. He believed it could be shown that Poole did not get a fair trial, inasmuch as 48 jurors of the special jury panel were made to stand aside by the Crown. [An hon. MEMBER: No; 32.] An hon. Gentleman told him 32—the difference was not very great. He was convinced that they would be able to show the House that there had been a great miscarriage of justice in this case, and that an innocent man had been sacrificed for a crime which he had never committed.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of unnecessarily detaining the House. No doubt, Poole's case had already been amply stated by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), and still more lucidly, if he might say so, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but he (Mr. W. Redmond)

    333
    wished merely to raise his voice against the execution of this man. He knew a great many people in Dublin and other parts of Ireland who were intimately acquainted with Poole; and, from the advantage he had had of discussing the case with these people, he had not the slightest doubt that Poole had died a perfectly innocent man. Of course, it would be considered tiresome by English Members to have Members representing Irish constituencies bringing cases like this under the notice of Parliament time after time. It might be said that cases of this kind were hardly such as should be settled in the House, and that there were more important affairs awaiting discussion. But it must be remembered that the Irish Members had no opportunity, except that which was afforded to them in that House, of explaining what they considered to be a miscarriage of justice in Ireland. They had no opportunity, except in the House, of showing up cases such as that of Poole. He invited the attention of English Members to the fact that this case of Poole was not by any means a single case of its kind. It must be borne in mind during this discussion that it was not so very long since it was the duty of the Irish Members in the House to call in question the action of the Government in Ireland in connection with the Maamtrasna case, and that even prior to that they had called attention to the case of Kilmartin. Kilmartin had been released, and no doubt it was the discussion which had taken place in the House which had had the effect of bringing about that release. Unfortunately, the discussion on the Maamtrasna case had not had a similar result; but the fact that time after time the Irish Members were in a postion to bring cases of this kind under the notice of Parliament ought to be quite sufficient, if for nothing more, at least to attract the attention of English Members to the way in which affairs were carried on in Ireland. He was not present when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) replied to the hon. Member for Mallow; but he had not the slightest doubt as to the nature of the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply of which he had been told. It was not unnatural that Gentlemen connected with the Executive in Ireland should do their best to make it appear that the law was
    334
    equitably administered in that country—it was only natural that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Solicitor General for Ireland, and the Lord Lieutenant should use their best efforts in that direction. It was only too invariably the practice of the Government to defend the Irish Executive in the House. The Executive being only fallible must occasionally be wrong; and, that being so, it would tend far more to the inspiring in the minds of the people of confidence in the Executive if Her Majesty's Ministers occasionally admitted they were wrong. It was a notorious fact, however, that, no matter how strong a case was brought against them, Members of the Government—as they had done in the case of Kilmartin, whose release they were compelled, ultimately, to order—stood up and manfully did battle for their side of the question. The late Chief Secretary for Ireland had repudiated the idea of the innocence of Kilmartin, and had practically told the Irish Members that they were to blame for bringing the case before the House, and that they would not release the man. That illustrated the point he wished to impress upon English Members—namely, that no matter whether the case of the Irish Members were good or bad, or whether the case of the Irish Executive were good or bad, Government officials always took up the defensive in the House. Would it not have been a great deal better, in the case of Kilmartin, if the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) had stood up in his place and honestly declared that, from representations he had received from the Irish Members, he believed Kilmartin was innocent, that the Executive had erred, and that the man would be released? If the right hon. Gentleman adopted that course, he would have given great satisfaction to the House; and, still more, considerable satisfaction to the people of Ireland. Instead of doing that, however, the right hon. Gentleman assumed a defiant attitude, and took it for granted that every case brought before the House by the Irish Members—every complaint urged by them—must be either untrue or unfounded; and this position was invariably taken up, notwithstanding that the right hon. Gentleman had, occasionally, been obliged to eat the leek. He (Mr. William Redmond) did not wish to

    335
    go into the Poole case, as that had already been sufficiently dealt with; but he wished to have it on record that he had given it as the opinion of the people he represented, that Joe Poole was a perfectly innocent man. He wished to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, at the time when Poole was tried and executed, and at the time the people who were arrested for the Maamtrasna outrage were tried, the Executive and the country were in a state of excitement and agitation. The agrarian agitation was at its height. The Government, with a spirit which, he supposed, was commendable in every Government, were anxious to put down agrarian crime; but, in their great anxiety to put down agrarian crime, they hurriedly took it for granted that certain outrages were of an agrarian character, when such was not the case. The country had now settled down; there was not the same agitation, and the Government were not so much afraid of agrarian crime. Now that quieter times had come round, the country was freed from excitement, and Government officials acted with more calmness, and in a more level-headed way. In the case of the Tubbercurry prisoners recently there was a fair trial, and the men were acquitted, because there was no evidence to connect them with the outrage; but he had not the slightest doubt that if the men had been arrested at the time Poole was arrested, and at the time the prisoners were arrested in the Maamtrasna case, they would have been now lying in their graves, having been executed, or would have been suffering penal servitude. He had no doubt that Joe Poole, and some of the prisoners in the Maamtrasna case, were as innocent as was Kilmartin. It was useless endeavouring to show the English Members and the English people how the people of Ireland looked on these matters. If English Members would only go to Ireland, would only travel over the country, and hear the sentiments of the people with regard to the government of Dublin Castle, they would come back to the House believing that the Irish Members had much more right to occupy time with the discussion of cases of this kind than they had ever given them credit for. It was to be regretted that the Government could not be brought to book for this murder of
    336
    Poole. The man was perfectly innocent of the crime for which he was hanged; but the Irish Members could do nothing more than endeavour, by every means in their power, to bring the case before the public. That was their only remedy, and he trusted it was one they would always make use of.
    MR. P. J. POWERsaid, he merely rose to make a protest on behalf of his constituents in the County of Waterford against the tax which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had that evening informed him had been levied upon that county. He had no hesitation in saying that a tenth part of the ordinary police employed in Ireland would be sufficient for the preservation of law and order, if the force were not required for the purpose of propping up iniquitous laws. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that in Waterford—and he knew a great deal of the county—there was no serious crime at that moment. If he had time he could give abundant proof of this. The greatest crime which appeared to him to exist in this matter on the part of his constituents was the fact that they too tamely submitted to the imposition. They might now take their cue from the answer he (Mr. Power) had received from the right hon. Gentleman that evening. Every day the opinion was gaining ground in Ireland that there was little to be got from the British Government unless the Irish people made their voices heard in no uncertain manner. He only wished to make a protest against the imposition of this tax upon his county.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 19: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 21.)
    House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Scottish and Irish. Peerages* (10); Income Tax*(11).
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Infants.

THE NEW PUBLIC OFFICES—THE WAR OFFICE AND ADMIRALTY—MESSRS. LEEMING'S DESIGNS.—QUESTION.
In reply to The Earl of WEMYSS,
LORD SUDELEYsaid: I have to state that, since the close of the last Session, Messrs. Leeming, the architects of the new Public Offices, have been occupied in carrying out on their plans the alterations and amendments suggested by the First Commissioner of Works. These have now been completed and approved of. The models are now being proceeded with, and will be ready for inspection early next year. It is proposed to have two models, one on the same scale as the drawings, showing the whole plan; and the other on a much larger scale of a small section of the building, to show all the details of the architectural workings.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsuggested that the models should be on such a scale as would show how far the new buildings would harmonize with the general character of the surroundings and neighbouring buildings.
LORD SUDELEY: My noble Friend is aware that there already exists a large model on a small scale, showing the whole area covered by Public Buildings about Whitehall and Parliament Street, which was made in 1878. The First Commissioner is at present considering how that model may be altered to show the new Offices in their position relatively to the Horse Guards and other Offices.

HOUSE OF LORDS—PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE.

  POSTPONEMENT OF RESOLUTIONS.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLrose to move the following Resolutions:—

  "1. That in the event of two or more Lords rising to address the House at the same time,

  223
  the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees, whichever then presides, shall call on one of them to speak, and the Lord so called upon shall speak, unless the House do order otherwise:

  "2. That Private Bill Committees shall consist of three, and that all applications to Lords to serve upon them shall Be in writing, and delivered at their residences:

  "3. That the House be lighted always at the commencement of Public Business and continue lighted until the adjournment, unless the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees gives a different instruction:

  "4. That no Lord who has a Motion or Bill upon the Paper shall rise to bring it forward out of its precedence:

  "5. That where the House permits reply to any Lord upon his Motion or his Bill, the debate shall on no pretence be continued after the reply is over:

  "6. That a false roof be introduced, similar to that in the other House of Parliament, to correct the present difficulty as to hearing."

  THE LORD CHANCELLORasked the noble Lord to consider whether it would be convenient for their Lordships to discuss the Resolutions in the unavoidable absence of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale). The Resolutions contained a great deal of debatable matter, with which, in some respects, the noble Earl was particularly conversant, and in regard to which he knew be desired an opportunity of expressing his opinion.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, he was willing to accede to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord. He had communicated with the noble Earl the chairman of Committees, and had no reason to suppose that he would be absent. He would postpone the Resolutions to a time when the House might hear the Chairman of Committees with regard to them.

INFANTS BILL.
(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
INFANTS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD FITZGERALD,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, reminded their Lordships that it had been brought before them on the 4th of August last, when he had fully explained its provisions, but, in deference to the views of the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) and of his noble and learned Friend behind him (Lord Bramwell), it had not been proceeded with. He explained that the object of
  224
  the Bill was to amend the law relating to the custody and guardianship of infants, and to amend it in points which were a discredit to the present state of their law. Its main object was to constitute the wife, if she survived her husband, guardian of her children. It too frequently happened that the husband was not a person who ought to be intrusted with the custody and guardianship of children. It also frequently happened to the wife that the knowledge of her husband being wholly unfitted for the guardianship of her children, had caused her last hours to be embittered by that reflection. This Bill, therefore, sought to provide a remedy, and to enable the wife, on an application, to obtain the sanction of the Court to the appointment of a guardian to her children to act after her decease in conjunction with the husband. The mother of any infant might apply to the Court for the appointment of some fit person or persons to act as guardian or guardians of such infant after her death jointly with the father of such infant; and the Court, if satisfied that, having regard to the character or habits of the father, or other grave cause, such appointment was necessary in the interests of the infant, might appoint a guardian If the guardian or guardians were unable to agree on a question affecting the welfare of the infant any of them might apply to the Court for its directions. The Court might, upon the application of the mother of any infant, make such order as it might think fit regarding the custody of the infant, having regard to the welfare of the infant and to the conduct of the parents and to the wishes as well of the mother as of the father, and might alter, vary, or discharge such order on the application of either parent, or, after the death of either parent, of any guardian. The Bill now before the House was in terms the same as it had come from the Commons. It had been carried last Session by very large majority in the House of Commons, being supported by many leading Members of the Conservative Party. Since last Session, his having charge of the Bill had brought him into communication with a large number of persons interested in the question. If the present Sittings ended by Prorogation, his introducing the Bill at present would be useless; but if they ended by an adjournment, its chance of

  225
  becoming law would be increased by being proceeded with now. He had presented a large number of Petitions in favour of the Bill, and it was certainly considered to be a subject of the greatest importance. It had excited more passionate interest among ladies than even the great subject of including them in the Franchise. If their Lordships desired that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, with the view of examining its details and making it as perfect a measure as possible, he had no objection.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he desired that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He did not object to the principle or to the intention of the Bill; but it required very careful consideration and very careful guarding against possible mischiefs which might result from its provisions. He had been written to by a distinguished legal Member of the House of Commons requesting that he should watch this measure and take care that no harm would come of it. He might mention another name connected with the House of Commons, a solicitor who probably knew more about this matter than a barrister did, because he came much more into contact with the persons interested. This Gentleman also very much objected to the Bill in its present shape without some guard or qualification being introduced. He, therefore, thought the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it would be in their Lordships' recollection that many of those noble Lords who addressed the House in the last Session agreed as to the importance of the Bill, and the impossibility of insisting that those were unreasonable, who thought it necessary to examine its provisions with care, in order to see that they were such as were right in themselves and productive of no mischiefs. He was not really aware of any mischief which would be likely to result from the passing of the Bill exactly as it at present stood; but he agreed with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) in saying that this was not the time for going into details, and the course which had been mentioned was
  226
  one which their Lordships ought to accede to.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a, accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.
  And, on December 1, the Lords following were named of the Committee:

  L. Chancellor.

  L. Watson.

  D. Bedford.

  L. Brabourne.

  E. Cairns.

  L. Bramwell.

  L. Sudeley.

  L. FitzGerald.

  The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.

PUBLIC WORKS AND RECREATION GROUNDS (METROPOLIS)—THE MAIN DRAINAGE EMBANKMENT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL COWPER,in rising to call attention to the great benefit which would be conferred upon the inhabitants of the crowded districts of Stratford, Plaistow, and East Ham if the Main Drainage Embankment passing through those districts could be converted into a public boulevard, said, the structure, on the top of which he wished to place a public walk, was a very large work, three miles in length and about 30 feet in breadth. It was raised above the level of the street, and it would enable persons on the top of it to obtain a breath of really fresh air, and to retire for a time from the noise and bustle of the streets. It would make a most acceptable walk, and would somewhat resemble the walks seen in some of their old towns along the top of walls. He would be glad to know what the objections of the Metropolitan Board of Works were in regard to the planting of this Embankment with trees and shrubs. To do so would not interfere with the works. No reason for objecting to do so had been given; and they were, therefore, driven to conjecture. One reason, it was supposed, was that there would be a certain amount of smell; but if there should be any from the drains it could be obviated by having ventilating shafts constructed at a small expense. Another objection that had been taken to the proposal was upon the ground of safety; but he thought that would be really one of the strongest arguments in its favour. At the present time there was a fence throughout the whole length of the Embankment, on each side of it, eight feet high, which afforded facilities for people bent on mischief hiding behind it. Therefore, there would be less danger if the

  227
  fence were down and the Embankment thrown open. West Ham was densely crowded with poor people, and it was extremely desirable to make this improvement to enable them to have recreation and enjoyment.
  EARL GRANVILLEremarked that they had only heard one side of the question; but, personally, he was inclined to say that his noble Friend had made out a good primâ facie case in favour of his proposal. He had, however, communicated with his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and he was informed by him that, as his noble Friend was probably aware, the matter primarily rested with the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Home Secretary had sent the Notice of his noble Friend to Sir James M'Garel-Hogg, the Chairman of the Board of Works, and had requested him to make his observations upon it. As soon as the reply was received the Home Secretary would consider it in connection with his powers in the matter; but, as his right hon. and learned Friend stated, it was very doubtful if he had any power at all. However, the Home Secretary would communicate with his noble Friend on receiving the reply.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he thought that no opportunity whatever should be lost of calling the attention of the House to the possibility of providing fresh places of recreation for the people of the Metropolis, and this particular case was one which appeared to recommend itself to the consideration of the House. He recollected being present at the opening of the great Metropolitan sewer, and a great variety of benefits were then promised which had not all been entirely realized. It appeared to be a reproach on the Local Authorities in London that they should have to be awakened by means of private Associations to what appeared to be their paramount duty.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, that the subject deserved attention from its bearing on the question of Municipal Reform. The Municipal Authorities in London ought to take into consideration the best means of affording recreation and healthy exercise to the masses. It was the misfortune of London that its open spaces were being rapidly covered with buildings; and it became neces-
  228
  sary that the Government of the Metropolis should look beyond the material advantages of drainage and convenient thoroughfares, and the employment of rates, and should look, as part of its duty, to the mode of meeting the comforts and enjoyments and happiness of the masses of toiling people who were placed beyond the reach of any open air exercise. It appeared that this Embankment might be made a promenade for the enjoyment of large numbers of people without any additional expense of any consequence; and he hoped that the Metropolitan Board of Works might rise to their great duties in that respect, and not suffer itself to fall behind the Corporation of London, who had preserved Epping Forest for the public, and had used their powers for the promotion of the comfort and enjoyment of the population under their control.
  LORD WAVENEYremarked on the improvement of ventilation in the low-lying North Woolwich district from the rush of air caused by the passage of the railway trains.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would ask the House to suspend its Sitting during pleasure. He proposed that their Lordships should meet to-morrow to forward a Money Bill and two other Bills which were not opposed, and that they should not meet for political purposes during the remainder of the week.
  SCOTTISH AND IRISH PEERAGES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the laws relating to the Representation in the House of Lords by election of the Scottish and Irish Peerages—Was presented by The Lord "WAVENEY; read 1a. (No. 10.)

  INCOME TAX BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with (The Earl Granville). (No. 11.)
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.