Sitting of 31 August 1887

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee — CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS II.— SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 36, 37, 40 to 42.
Resolution [August 30] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee — Report — Trinidad and Tobago * [368].
Withdrawn — Metropolitan Board of Works (Fire Brigade Expenses) * [108].

QUESTION.

  LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  MR. COBBasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he could give them any idea as to whether the Labourers' Allotments Bill would be taken to-morrow?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASUEY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he had every hope that the Bill would be taken to-morrow, if hon. Gentlemen did not object to its being proceeded with at a late hour.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £25,967, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London and Subordinate Departments."
    MR. SEXTON: Sir, we do not admit—we cannot admit, and we will not admit—that the speech made last night by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was in any sense to be regarded in the nature of a reply to the cases which we have made against the Proclamation of various places in Ireland. We must ask the Government to reply specifically to the different points in the cases we have made, and I shall point out, as briefly as I can, the proof that the Government must offer in order to justify the Proclamation of last month. We referred at length to the Coercion Act itself. The Act itself contains language of a most specific character in restraint of the action of the Lord Lieutenant. The Act declared that—
    " The Lord Lieutenant shall not proclaim any district, unless he is satisfied that the proclamation of it is necessary for the prevention or detection of crime and outrage."
    It is manifest, from the language of the Act, that before a district can be properly proclaimed, according to the intention of the Legislature, that there should be proof in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant—the agents of the Lord Lieutenant must be prepared to advance proof that the district is in a condition of crime and outrage, and that for the prevention or detection of that crime and outrage it is necessary that the district should be proclaimed. I apprehend that you have not shown, in regard to any county or district in Ireland, that it is in a condition of crime and outrage contemplated by the Act. I referred early this morning also to the pledges of the Chief Secretary himself. Those pledges are not contained in one quotation or in one sentence. They were sown broadcast over the whole debate of the whole Bill. I will not quote them again. The sense of them is undeniably this—that the Government did not in-

    637
    tend, that they led the House to believe that they did not intend to apply this Act at once to the whole of Ireland; that they rather hoped that the Act would remain a dead letter for years; and that before they did apply it to any district they would satisfy themselves that crime and outrage existed there. That has not been done, and there has been doubly a breach of faith with them. The Chief Secretary has violated the pledge he gave in this House that the Act was not intended to apply except to the limited area in which there were crime and outrage, and the Government have also been guilty of a violation of faith in the course they have adopted. Ten cities and towns in Ireland have been proclaimed. Why have they been proclaimed? Are they districts in which crime and outrage can be said to prevail? The ground for the Proclamation is that assaults upon the ministers of the law are committed in these places. If I admit for a moment that assaults upon the ministers of the law could not be satisfactorily dealt with by the ordinary law, and that it is necessary to apply a Coercion Act, I fall back on this—that no one has shown that assaults upon ministers of the law have been committed in these cities throughout the present year. I stand here to say, in regard to these cities and towns of Ireland, that any assaults committed in them in which ministers of the law have been concerned in the present year have been assaults in which the ministers of the law have been the assailants and not the assailed. A remarkable case has occurred in Cork, where a District Inspector of Police assaulted my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner). The hon. Member was assaulted whilst peacefully addressing a public meeting. The local Bench of Magistrates committed the Inspector in this case for trial; but the Government refused to allow the case to be proceeded with. That was the only assault committed—an assault in which a minister of the law was the assailant—and I say that when offences cited in the Proclamation have not been committed by anyone in any of the cities and towns proclaimed, the Proclamation of those cities and towns is mere unjustifiable wantonness. The Government, to support their own case, were bound to show that these offences have been committed, and that
    638
    the ordinary tribunals have failed to deal with them; but they have done neither the one thing nor the other. Then, in the 14 counties which have been proclaimed for two offences—that is to say, for taking forcible possession and for assaults on ministers of the law—in order to justify the Proclamation, the Government are bound to show that the offences alleged have prevailed in these counties, and. that the ordinary law has failed to deal with them. That is the only ground upon which you can justify special laws and coercive measures. In these 14 counties, however, as your Returns show, there has not been a single case of either taking forcible possession or of assaulting ministers of the law. What in the world do you mean, then? Do you expect to be taken, say, for rational men; do you expect us to have patience with you, or to be silent about your conduct? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary may smile; but, I ask, what in the world is the meaning of proclaiming these 14 counties in respect of offences which have not taken place in them? I could understand it if you rested your case on Boycotting and intimidation. Those offences are said to exist there— your whole case, generally speaking, goes upon it; and yet, after having passed an Act to put down Boycotting and intimidation, you proclaim 14 counties, not in respect of the offence which was the general excuse for your coercion measure, but in respect of two entirely different offences which do not prevail in the slightest degree in these counties. Whilst you have not proclaimed these counties in respect of the offences which you say exist, you have proclaimed them in respect of offences which you are obliged to admit do not exist at all. You have proclaimed 18 counties under the first four sections of the Act. Your case rests upon Boycotting Returns of the same flimsy character. These Returns are not evidence. I decline to receive them as evidence. You give us certain lists of figures; you say a certain number of people are Boycotted, and a certain number of people are under police protection. I deny it. I say that when you arraign the whole of the people of Ireland at the Bar, and suspend their Constitutional liberties, you are obliged to offer at least as good and reasonable evidence of their guilt as you would

    639
    offer against the pickpocket at the Old Bailey. You are obliged to give evidence as to the fault of a whole county, just as you would give it to a jury about a single individual. We say that there is nothing in the condition of these people Boycotted, or in the condition of these people who are protected by the police, which entitled you to maintain the strictest secrecy with regard to them. If a man is protected in his house, and in his walks, and in his rides abroad, the fact is not one which it is necessary to keep secret, for it is notorious everybody in the district is aware of the fact, and the man can lose nothing by having the fact stated in this House; but, on the contrary, he can gain a good deal by such statement being made, as it will bring him the sympathy of this House. I protest against this secrecy—against having the liberties of my countrymen juggled and whispered away in this fashion. We are entitled to test and sift the evidence in these cases; and, therefore, we have a right to ask to be supplied with the names and addresses of persons alleged to be Boycotted. If the Government will agree to lay upon the Table a Return giving the names and addresses, and showing the people who are wholly or partially Boycotted, and who are under constant or general police protection, I, on my part, will be willing to forego the continuance of this debate. I am so confident that in regard to the great mass of these cases we shall be able to show, as we have already been able to show whenever we have been able to obtain a clue as to the persons alleged to be outraged, the hollowness and falseness of the pretensions of the Government, that I should be willing not to proceed with this debate any longer, relying upon our ability to refute the evidence afforded us. We shall be satisfied if you will place a clue before us. If the Government will give this information, I will ask my hon. Friends around me not to continue the debate. You could then take your Vote, and we would subsequently find an opportunity of discussing the matter. The second point I have to submit is this—and I ask the Committee to consider the matter in a rational spirit. According to the official Returns, there are 700 people in Ireland who are Boycotted, and 1,000 people who are under police protection. Now, if there are 700 people in Ireland
    640
    to whom their neighbours will not speak, from whom their neighbours will not buy, to whom their neighbours will not sell, and if there are 1,000 persons who are obliged to be protected by armed men, and accompanied by armed men when they go abroad—and I do not believe that these things occur—can anyone believe that acts of intimidation are not of daily occurrence? If it is true that 1,700 people are in this position, and are kept in it from day to day, will anybody believe that there do not occur thousands of cases of intimidation? Such a state of things could not be maintained and kept up without constant intimidation; and yet, according to the official information supplied to this House during the whole of the June quarter, only 15 cases of intimidation were committed in the whole of Ireland. Now, which Return is right? The two cannot be right. One is incompatible with the other. Is the Inspector General right when he says that during the June quarter there were only 15 cases of intimidation, or are the official Returns correct when they sot forth that there are 700 people Boycotted and 1,000 people under police protection in Ireland kept in a state of daily and hourly intimidation? We are entitled to claim a more satisfactory reply from the Government than the curt answer we received from the right hon. Gentleman yesterday. We must have an answer seriously delivered, and without unnecessary carelessness and flippancy. I repeat the offer I made. If the Government are willing to abandon their policy of whisper and stealth and are willing to give us such information as to the cases of Boycotting and police protection as will enable us to sift them, we, on our part, will be prepared—and no doubt my hon. Friends will agree with me in this—not any longer to continue the debate upon this subject.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J.BALFOUR): I venture to think that the hon. Member has confused two very different points. He has confused the offence of not giving an answer satisfactory to himself, and the offence of not giving an answer at all. I admit that I have not, either in this or in any previous debates, been fortunate enough to lay before the House any argument which

    641
    hon. Members from Ireland will allow to be conclusive; but I cannot admit that I have not attempted to give an answer to every one of the points raised by the hon. Member, even if I have not succeeded in giving a satisfactory reply to the hon. Member who has just sat down and his Friends behind him upon everyone of the points he has recapitulated this morning. I do not think that I was guilty of omitting to reply to any single point the hon. Member raised in my two speeches. I think I am correct in saying that every one of the points he has now laid before the House for a second time has already been dealt with—were, in fact, dealt with by me last night. Many of them were dealt with by me last night not for the first time. There is one exception only to that broad statement, and that is the alleged irregularity of which the Government were guilty in proclaiming districts under the Crimes Act, and where overt crimes, or which the hon. Member described as "crime and outrage" had not occurred. Sir, I did not deal with that point because it was a legal point, and I confess I think it was not a point of great importance. I think it was one in regard to which further consideration and study of the Act itself would convince the hon. Member that really he had no case. If he will look at the Act he will see that the clause enforced by the Proclamation is, amongst other clauses, the 2nd clause. Now, that 2nd clause explicitly deals with offences which the hon. Member chooses to describe as "crime and outrage; "therefore, if the Legislature had seriously intended to use the words "crime and outrage" in the sense in which the hon. Member uses them, it is clear we could not have dealt by Proclamation with Clause 2 of the Act which contemplates many other offences than those the hon. Member has referred to. If the hon. Member considers that answer insufficient and unsatisfactory, perhaps he will ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland to supplement what has only been a very short sketch which I have now laid before the Committee. With that exception, I am sure I have already dealt more or less satisfactorily with every point the hon. Member referred to this morning. With regard to the statement he has repeated — a statement
    642
    which I contradicted last night—that I gave a pledge to the House that an indefinite time would elapse before the Crimes Act was applied to Ireland, the Committee will see that such an admission on my part would have been wholly absurd, and would have been in itself an adequate reason for the House declining to consider further the Criminal Law Amendment Bill at all. It would have been ridiculous to ask the House to accept a Bill which it was not intended to put in force for an indefinite period. Then the hon. Member went on to raise a question as to a subsection of that particular clause which is applied to the whole of Ireland, with regard to assaults on the police. I have again and again had to lay before the Committee the grounds on which I think that that may be very well extended to Ireland, and why the Government are of opinion that the provision should become a part of the permanent law of Ireland, as it is a part of the permanent law of England and Scotland.
    MR. SEXTON: Why do you upset the ordinary jurisdiction where crime does not exist at all?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The fact that assaults on police have not occurred for the last year in certain counties—and the hon. Member says that they have not occurred—assuming his facts to be true, and that there has been no assault in Cork and Limerick during the last year, that can be no argument against substituting an improved method of procedure, in case these offences should occur, over the antiquated procedure which has already been abolished in England and Scotland. That is all we have done. These are the reasons I have already given, and whether they are satisfactory to the hon. Member or not, they are reasons satisfactory enough to ourselves. Now, leaving the question of the great towns, the hon. Member went on to discuss the question of police protection and taking forcible possession, and to the Proclamation we have extended to all the counties and rural districts of Ireland. He aays—" You have no similar law in England." Well, Sir, we have no similar law in England and Scotland for the reason that we have no similar offences.
    MR. SEXTON: Neither have you any such offences in the 14 proclaimed counties—none at all.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman fails to see the vital and fundamental distinction between the case of Ireland and that of this country. All we have done by this is not to create an offence, but to establish an improved method of procedure in dealing with the offence, and the question we have to consider is whether or not the offence is one which is likely to be committed. ["Oh, oh ! "from the Irish Members.] I apprehend that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite can hardly deny that the offence of taking forcible possession is likely to be committed. It is an act which they hold to be justifiable on the part of the tenant; an act which they think perfectly proper, and which they themselves have repeatedly urged upon the public. I do not wish to introduce controversial matter into this discussion; but the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), speaking in one of the counties proclaimed, not under the first four sections, but under this sub-section, urged the people to commit an offence. Discussing some evictions on Lord Annesley's estate, in order to carry which a large military force would be required, and which force it would be impossible to beep alive in the district where the evictions were to take place unless they took their provisions with them, the hon. Member said to the people that when the military force which had been employed had gone away, they could go back to their homes, and be just as comfortable as ever. [Cheers from the Irish Members.] The hon. Gentleman recommends, and other hon. Gentlemen by their cheers also recommend, these people to go back to their homes when evicted. Under the circumstances, is it not a proper precaution for the Government to take, knowing that this offence is one recommended by those who aspire to be the leaders of the Irish people, and knowing that, unfortunately, it is an offence of too frequent an occurrence already, that the Government should put the Act in force in regard to these districts. Again, I say, that though my arguments may be not satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman, I think he will admit from my point of view that I have tried as well as I can to meet the case hon. Members have advanced. The hon. Gentleman went on again to discuss the question of the Boycotting sta-
    644
    tistics. With regard to this matter, I think he will admit that I have dealt with it several times before—that I had dealt with it before he spoke last night, and that I did so after he had spoken. He says—" Why do you not publish the names of these people in order that we may test the accuracy of your facts? "Well, to begin with, it has never been admitted by any Government, as far as I know—it certainly has not been admitted by this Government—that the official statistics are tainted at their source. We cannot admit that the facts we laid before the House, and that we are asked to lay before the House, on official authority are of such a kind that they cannot be accepted by this House until hon. Gentlemen have had an opportunity of discussing them in detail, cross-examining them, and so on.
    MR. SEXTON: They are contradicted by other official Returns.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can only deal with the hon. Gentleman's arguments in their order. The hon. Gentleman says the statistics in regard to Boycotting are contradicted by other official Returns. Again, I dealt with that part of the argument yesterday, and I think the arguments I advanced against it were of the clearest kind. The argument I applied was this. He says Boycotting requires acts of intimidation to support it—that Boycotting must be associated with acts of intimidation, and that it cannot exist without them. He then takes the statistics in a particular county—I think the particular county chosen last night was Wexford. He takes a particular county, and says— "You allege that so many persons in this county are Boycotted, but your Police Returns show at the same time that there is little or no intimidation in that county. Therefore, it is quite clear that when your official Returns show that there is Boycotting, they are guilty of gross inaccuracy, because if there had been Boycotting there must also have been intimidation." I apprehend that I have not in any way misinterpreted or misrepresented the arguments laid before the House by the hon. Member for West Belfast, and repeated by the hon. Member for East Mayo. These hon. Gentlemen appear to be of opinion that this intimidation which appears in the Police Returns is intimidation which includes within it the

    645
    appearances of Boycotting; but that is not so. It is perfectly true that under Sub-section 2 of this Act Boycotting is an offence of intimidation, but in the Police Returns Boycotting is not returned, and never has been returned as one of the offences described as intimidation. I have not the official statistics here. If the hon. Gentleman will run over the heads included in intimidatian, he will see that Boycotting is not now, and never has been, returned as one of the offences described as intimidation. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman founded this particular case on the supposed fact that under the head of intimidation the police included Boycotting. I must entirely traverse the view of the hon. Gentleman. It may be true that in the earlier stages of this agitation Boycotting could not be carried into effect except under the threat of intimidation and outrage. That was probable, but I am sorry to say that the machinery of the League has been so protected since then, that I believe it is absolutely necessary now to use intimidation in most cases, at all events, to compel persons to carry out the verdicts of the League by which certain offenders against their rules are punished. Then the hon. Member asked us why we declined to publish the names of persons Boycotted? This, again, is a subject upon which I have had more than once to detain the Committee. Our ground is this. We did not think we ought to superadd to all the sufferings inflicted upon the people by the League by Boycotting the further sufferings of having their cases discussed with the freedom —I will use no harsher term—which hon. Members permit themselves to adopt in this House. We see no reason why, to the suffering they already endure, that an additional element of suffering should be added. We feel obliged to continue the invariable practice with regard to criminal statistics, to give the total number of cases, but not to specify the names of the victims.
    MR. SEXTON: What is the reason why, whenever the right hon. Gentleman is able to find a resolution passed by a branch of the League, Boycotting some person by name, he is always glad to read it to the House?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That argument I will answer at once. The reason I read out the names in such a case is
    646
    because the resolution in which the name occurs is one which has appeared in the public papers by the sanction of the League, and I presume, in that case there will be no discussion in the matter in this House. The newspaper resolution I read is a resolution of a branch of the League, published on the authority and with the sanction of the branch, and I assume that the cases dealt with in such resolutions will not be subjected to that minute critical examination which, under other circumstances, the cases would certainly be subjected to. That is the last observation I think it will be necessary for me to address to the Committee on the subject. The hon. Member has said that he will always controvert those statistics which I have laid on the Table of the House as to Boycotting, and that he will never admit that they are other than false representations. Well, I cannot prevent his adopting that supposition if he chooses to do so. I do not believe, however, that he will find that the majority in the House are of his opinion, or that the people of the country will take his view of the value of the official statistics. But I would remind him that I have not, in the debates which have occurred in regard to the National League, relied in the main upon these statistics. I have relied in the main, and for the reasons the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, upon the published and notorious resolutions that the various branches of the League have passed. I cannot flatter myself that in the few observations I have addressed to the House I have been so fortunate as to carry the hon. Gentleman with me. I think he will admit, however, that I have not abated one bit from the statement I made last night; but I have made these observations in order to defend myself from the charge of discourtesy which the hon. Gentleman in the statements he has made charged against me, but which I think circumstances show he ought never to have charged against me.
    MR. DILLON: I fully admit that the Chief Secretary has this morning met us in a better spirit and with a much improved tone from that which he employed last night. I must say in our defence, that if we were met in that way oftener, our arguments would be considerably shortened. We do not

    647
    claim, and we do not pretend to expect, that Ministers should always satisfy us, but we do claim, and we are here to claim, that we should be met by reasonable arguments, whether those arguments should be satisfactory to us or not. We claim that when we have made what we consider a strong case, covering a number of important points, that a Minister shall not stand up and dismiss it, without even the courtesy of a notice of the most important points that we have raised. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman has gone over all the points which have been raised, and that, of course, he has not satisfied us. He has dealt with them from his own point of view. There were some points in the course of his speech which I feel bound to endeavour to reply to, and particularly as to this case of Boycotting. This question will undoubtedly form matter of great controversy in this country during the coming autumn. I have absolute confidence that the people of England will not take quite the same view of the subject as the Chief Secretary. We shall go to the people of this country and ask them what is the value of the statistics which have been presented to us, and I have no doubt we shall receive an answer favourable to our view. The right hon. Gentleman says that we have laid it down that Boycotting cannot be carried out without acts of intimidation. Now, that is not what I said at all last night; I said nothing of the kind. What I said was this, and it will be in the recollection of everybody who is a Member of the House, and who has attended to these debates with any degree of care, that whenever the subject of Boycotting was brought forward by the Ministers of the Grown they drew most appalling pictures of the misery resulting from it, and endeavoured to lead Members of this House to believe that these cases of Boycotting were cases of desperate and outrageous intimidation. That cannot be denied. It was not I who defined Boycotting; I took the definition of the right hon. Gentleman. I said—"You have told us that Boycotting is a system based upon most desperate and outrageous terrorism."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Member has mistaken what I said. I said that Boycotting was intimidation of a most serious kind in itself.
    MR. DILLON: What is it? If Boycotting is intimidation, I say that the right hon. Gentleman went a great deal further than that. The Government have always led us to believe, or have always sought to do so, that it is a system involving frightful intimidation and terrorism. They have dropped that position, and in framing my argument I accept their later definition. Let me take what seems to be their argument now—that Boycotting as a system is not based on any acts of intimidation or threats of violence of any kind, but is simply a question of peaceful, exclusive dealing—a combination among the people themselves to refuse to speak with individuals, or to trade with individuals. That is what occurs in every trades union strike in England. They cannot deny it. There is not a single trades union strike where the man who takes the part of the blackleg is not Boycotted by his fellow workmen, and when you say that Boycotting is intimidation, and nothing but intimidation, I say that it is just the system of intimidation that the trades unions make use of to defend themselves. Do not we know that trades unions bring this system to bear upon everybody who breaks their rules? In cases where men break the rules of a trades union, men refuse to work with them in the same workshop, and refuse to have anything to do with them, looking upon them as blacklegs. They ostracise them because they are non-union men, and according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Boycotting that prevails in Ireland, and in consequence of which they propose to take away the liberties of Ireland, is nothing more nor less than the system of exclusive dealing which prevails in this country wherever you have trades unions. The position the right hon. Gentleman has now taken up is an entirely new feature in the case. If that be so, and if we are to accept from the Government the statement that the Boycotting which exists in these 18 counties which have been proclaimed under the four first sections of the Act is peaceful Boycotting, and is not based upon any system of violence to person or property—that is to say, is only a combination not to deal with, or speak to, certain persons, then I ask the Government on what ground they have applied Clauses 1, 3, and 4 to these dis-

    649
    tricts, in addition to Clause 2? Clause 2 deals with Boycotting, and nothing but Boycotting. Let us look at it for a moment. Clause 2 covers the whole field of Boycotting, whereas Clause 1 deals with the discovery of crime. When you have no crime in a country at all, why do you take powers to enable you to discover it? Clauses 3 and 4 deal with special juries and change of venue for the trial of offences of a serious character, and not for the trial of offences of Boycotting pure and simple, without cause of intimidation, which are fully dealt with under Clause 2. I say, therefore, that the case of the right hon. Gentleman completely falls to the ground, and that he has not a leg to stand upon. I say he had no earthly right to apply the Sections 1, 3, and 4 to any of these districts of Ireland, instead of contenting himself with the application of Section 2. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Irish Members as having given advice to the tenantry of Ireland to take forcible possession of the farms from which they are evicted. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to defend the Proclamation based upon the ground of taking forcible possession. But that is not the question. The question is, not what advice has been given to the people, but where there have been any offences, and where the people have taken forcible possession in these counties. Why should not the Government wait until they know whether the people are going to take forcible possession? The facts the Government should go on are not the speeches of Members of Parliament in matters of this kind, but what they find in their Police Returns, or in the actual occurrences. They could at any time have applied this provision if they considered themselves justified in so doing, and if the facts justified them; that is to say, if they saw that crime existed, or was likely to exist, in three or four of the counties of Ireland. I utterly traverse the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that crime, as he calls it, exists in three or four of the counties of Ireland. Even if it were so, I traverse the declaration that that would be a justification to the Government for adopting what the right hon. Gentleman chooses to call an improved method of procedure. What does he mean by an improved method of proce-
    650
    dure? Why, acting without any regard being had to the merits of the case. An unfortunate wretch is, under this "improved method," to be convicted by men who are not Judges at all, and sentenced to a terrible term of imprisonment, for a most trivial offence. What right has he to put this in force against the poor Irish tenant? Let me read from The Spectator an account given by an English gentleman, a Unionist, of his visit to Glenbeigh, when the people of Coomassaharn fled at his approach. The gentleman I speak of went into this region, and what does he see? When he comes to within two miles of Coomassaharn, he sees people running away like Red Indians, and giving warning, and then taking to the hills. He discovered some of them lying in ditches and behind rocks in the neighbourhood of their own houses. Having succeeded in convincing them that he was not one of the emergency men who were ranging through the district, he gets them to come and sit down and chat with him. What was it that this Unionist gentleman said? Why, that—
    "This people of Coomassaharn were brutally and cruelly evicted from their homes, and are now living upon charity given into my hands by English people. They have been supported by that means for six months, and I am happy to say that I have still enough to keep them for six months more."
    How do these wretched women and children live? Why, they are put into their houses at night, while the men sleep out on the open mountain side; they have guards on the road, and whenever a stranger is seen approaching, men, women, and children fly to the mountains. That is taking forcible possession which the right hon. Gentleman's Proclamation will punish, by Resident Magistrates, with six months hard labour—that is the state of crime of that district; that is the condition of things which the Government profess they desire to apply a new method of procedure to. Only last week I had a letter from Glenbeigh informing me that a number of women and children were to be summoned before the magistrates—to be tried by this improved method of procedure—for creeping back into their homes and taking that kind of forcible possession.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now criticizing provisions adopted in an Act of Parliament, and not the discretion of the Executive.
    MR. DILLON: Well, Sir, I will not pursue that line of argument any further. I feel very strongly on the point, and am carried away by my feelings; but I will not detain the Committee any longer in regard to it. I will refer to the point upon which the right hon. Gentleman told us to seek information from the Irish Attorney General. I am convinced, so far as I can read this Act, that we are right in the legal matter. I am not a lawyer, but I think it is as I say. The statute confers on the Lord Lieutenant discretion to proclaim a district only where he finds it necessary for the prevention, detection, or punishment of crime and outrage. How does the right hon. Gentleman seek to evade the meaning of these words? He said that inasmuch as Clause 2 did not deal with crime and outrage, it must have been manifest that Parliament in passing this Act did not intend to put the interpretation which we claim upon the measure. I have looked at Clause 2, and I put a very different construction upon it. Clause 2 says that—
    " Any one who shall commit any of the following offences in a proclaimed district shall come under a provision."
    And then it goes on to state the offences. The meaning of it is that when a district is disturbed and crime and outrage prevail, these new offences are to be set up because the condition of the country is dangerous. The intention of the Act was that you are not to have these new offences set up in every district which are not districts in which these things prevail. The meaning of Clause 2 is that where a district is disturbed, and law and order are interfered with, and crime and outrage and terrorism prevail, it is necessary then, in order to maintain the law, to set up these new offences. That is plainly the meaning of the Act. Therefore, I say we have a very strong case for our contention that, in issuing this Proclamation on the large scale that he did, the Lord Lieutenant broke the law. Supposing, even for the sake of argment, that we make him a present of Clause 2, and admit that Clause 2 may be applied—although I do not believe that it was intended that it should be applied under these circumstances when the Act was passed—but supposing we make him a present of Clause 2, what has it got to do with Clauses 1, 3, and 4? There is not a
    652
    shred of argument for the claim that the Lord Lieutenant is empowered by this Act to apply Clauses 1, 3, and 4 to any district in which he is not satisfied that it is necessary for the prevention, detection, and punishment of crime and outrage. Crime and outrage are well understood terms, and I want to know on what ground—I want to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell the House on what ground the Lord Lieutenant was justified in applying these provisions to these districts where there exists neither crime nor outrage? That is a strong case, and I should like to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer to it. We are entitled to ask that an Act of Parliament having been passed, it shall not have its meaning distorted, and that this clause shall not be illegally applied.
    THE ATTOENEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): The statement the hon. Gentleman has made is not well-founded in law, and I will satisfy him as well as I can that the argument he has advanced is not a sound one. Now, I have stated in the clearest and most unambiguous language that Section 2 of the Act of Parliament creates no new offences or crimes, I am wholly unable to understand how it is that a thing can be criminal and not criminal at the same time, and I assert that any one of these offences or crimes under Section 2 are crimes in England and Scotland as well as in Ireland. When we come to "deal with Section 5 of the Act of Parliament it contemplates the Lord Lieutenant putting in force the operation of the Act for the prevention, detection, or punishment of crimes in Ireland. Now, I assert that there are in Section 2 of the Act of Parliament to be found a number of offences which are crimes, and which crimes are capable of being committed without any overt acts at all—such as the crime of conspiracy. We all know that if A B and C conspire together to murder a man, the crime of conspiracy to murder is complete, although the man actually escapes, and there is no overt act to carry out the criminal design, and therefore no outrage. The hon. Member has mentioned that the words "and outrage" are to be found in this section; but those words, in my opinion, do not qualify or cut down, the word "crime." That is my opinion

    653
    as to the question of law which has been raised. The hon. Member says that though that may be so with regard to Section 2, it would not apply to the other sections. The hon. Gentleman must recollect that the object of this Act of Parliament is to check crime, as well as to punish overt crime where it actually exists. It appears to me that if it is necessary to apply a provision of the Act of Parliament relating to intimidation to certain counties, that would afford a strong argument indeed for applying Sections 1, 3, and 4 to such counties. I do not say that it would be conclusive, because it might be sufficient in certain counties to apply that provision for intimidation only. But we do know that a very common form of intimidation which exists is intimidation which prevents witnesses giving evidence, orintimidation which will prevent the prosecution being entered upon, and this intimidation would render it necessary to have a superior class of jurors, and, in the same way, there might be intimidation in a certain district which would render it improbable that a just verdict would be obtained, and, therefore, it might be necessary to bring about a change of venue. I do not know whether I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman by what I have said; but I trust he will see that I have endeavoured to do so to the best of my ability.
    MR. SEXTON: I very humbly, but firmly, take issue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the first line of page 6 of the Act.
    MR. GIBSON: What section?
    MR. SEXTON: Sections. The Lord Lieutenant is entitled to proclaim certain districts where he thinks it is necessary for the purpose of the prevention, detection, or punishment of ''crime and outrage." Now, why do they not say that he is entitled to issue a Proclamation in respect of "crime and outrage?" That would have made the meaning clear, according to the sense the right hon. and learned Gentleman attaches to the words; no one could then have denied that the Lord Lieutenant would be entitled to proclaim a district where crime existed, or even where, if crime did not exist, outrage existed. The word "and" has a conjunctive operation, and it is clear, unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman establishes a system of English grammar of his own,
    654
    that the two conditions must exist in any district, in order to justify that Proclamation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman interprets English in an unnatural sense. The right hon. and learned Gentleman contends that either crime or outrage is sufficient; but why does not the Act say "crime or outrage"—why does it join the two? His reply in regard to the Proclamation as to the 1st, 3rd, and 4th sections, is weaker still. Under the 2nd section, anyone who Boycotts or intimidates a person can be brought before two paid magistrates, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Does he say that is not sufficient? Does he say that the adoption of these powers is not sufficient? Why does he super add Proclamations under Sections 1, 3, and 4? The right hon. and learned Gentleman says it is because in the districts contemplated in the section there may be such intimidation as would prevent witnesses from coming forward. But has that occurred? He has not given us any evidence of it. He referred generally to a couple of cases in the West of Ireland, and to a third instance in some other case, where he said the witnesses had not given proper evidence. Well, I have gone over the whole record of the Summer Assizes, and have not found a trace of evidence to show that witnesses, who knew anything, have failed to come forward, or have failed to give full and satisfactory evidence for the guidance of Judge and jury when they have come forward, and I have not found any evidence to show that juries have failed to convict when they should do so. What is the meaning of setting up a Star Chamber in 18 counties, unless you are able to say that evidence is being withheld—and you do not say that? What is the meaning of taking power to change the venue, unless you show that local juries have failed to give verdicts; or of having special juries, if the ordinary juries return true and honest verdicts? There is not a scintilla of evidence to any such effect, and not a word has been said to justify the Proclamation under Sections 1, 3, and 4 of this Act.
    MR. GIBSON: I wish to point out that the object of the Lord Lieutenant in making the Proclamation is to prevent crime and outrage. The section referred to by the hon. Member is a cumulative provision, and is not to be dealt with as

    655
    if the word "prevention" was to be struck out, which is what the hon. Member's argument in substance comes to. The section is intended to indicate the object which the Lord Lieutenant is to have in view, and which he is to be satisfied there is reasonable prospect of attaining by the Proclamation—namely, the prevention of crime and outrage. I submit, therefore, with great confidence that the Proclamation is perfectly legal. If it had not been perfectly legal, I certainly should not have approved of it as a Law Officer of the Crown. With regard to the second point the hon. Member has made, he suggests—and I think it is a reproduction of the observations which fell from him last night— that the provisions relating to change of venue and special juries are of no use whatever in putting down crime. The hon. Gentleman thinks he proved a want of necessity for this; but the statistics which have been relied upon by the Government from time to time in this House appear to show that there was an enormous amount of unpunished crime of a serious nature existing up to the passing of the Crimes Act of 1882, and that the effect of the Act was to diminish the amount of crime, and in cases of a serious and grave character— in cases of aggravated crime or personal violence—to increase the percentage of convictions very largely. There is no doubt whatever about that. There is no doubt that the effect of the Crimes Act was to diminish crime, and there is no doubt that the percentage of convictions was enormously increased. It would be a strange thing to suggest that the provisions as to special juries and change of venue were designed to give the prisoner an additional chance of acquittal. We are now asked to believe that to give an opportunity for special juries, and for change of venue, increases a prisoner's chances of acquittal. That is opposed to all the experience of those connected with the administration of the law, and the very fact that the volume of crime is diminished, and the number of convictions in important cases is increased under the special jury and change of venue system, appears to show that the hon. Member's view is not well-founded. The hon. Member asks what is the object of extending the Proclamation so as to apply to Sections 1, 3, and 4, instead of relying on Section 2, which deals with
    656
    cases of Boycotting and intimidation. I think I have, as well as I could, already dealt with that matter; because I have called attention to the fact that where there is agrarian intimidation prevailing special juries and change of venue are felt desirable, together or apart. In some cases special juries would be enough; in others a change of venue might be sufficient without special juries. I cannot hope to satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite. All I can hope to do is to show them that I am not treating them with discourtesy and disrespect, but am anxious to give them the best reply I can. As to this question of statistics, which is from time to time brought forward, it is hard to be always able, on the spur of the moment, to supply figures; but as to the statement the hon. Member opposite made as to the failures of justice at recent Assizes, I would say he asked me a Question the other evening, and I gave him the best answer I could. I quoted a great number of instances in which cases had been postponed at Clare and other Assizes, owing to the failure to obtain verdicts. The hon. Gentleman said that there were hardly any other cases; but a case came to my knowledge from the Midland counties. I telegraphed last night, in consequence of the statement of the hon. Gentleman, to ascertain the state of things in the City of Cork. There were five cases there, I was informed, and in one of them there was an acquittal of a very unsatisfactory character. However, I can only say that I have attempted to give as much information upon this matter as I possibly could.
    MR. SEXTON: The case the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to was that of a seaman who came into the City of Cork, and was not an Irishman at all.
    MR. GIBSON: I do not say who the man was, and I do not say what the reasons were for the verdict of the jury. All I say is that the information I received was that there were five cases in the City of Cork at the last Assizes, one of which was an important case of murder, and that the prisoner was acquitted in a manner which was very unsatisfactory to those who watched the case.
    MR. CLANCY: The speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfactory on the score of its conciliatory tone; but it is extremely

    657
    unsatisfactory in other respects. The greater part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was taken up by pure speculation. "You can imagine a certain state of things," he said, "and if even half is realized our policy is perfectly right." Of course, you can imagine anything you like; but is the Government to put in force the provisions of a Coercion Act of extraordinary stringency on the speculation of the bare possibility that certain things may occur? That is a kind of argument which I think would not commend itself to any section of the House in the case of any matter affecting the people of this country. Now, Sir, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations with regard to the City of Cork are entirely contradicted by the words of Mr. Justice O'Brien, which were read last night by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have forgotten them I will read them again. Mr. Justice O'Brien said—
    " He wished the City was as prosperous as it was free from crime. There were but two cases to go before them, and they were both against the same person for a trivial offence, and for the same offence.
    MR. SEXTON: That refers to Limerick.
    MR. CLANCY: Yes; that refers to Limerick. The statement he made as to Cork was this—
    " The city is absolutely and entirely free from crime. It is not the first time that I have had to make the observation; but it has enjoyed now for a considerable time, even within our own times, and within my own experience, an entire immunity from ordinary crime."
    That is a great deal to be said in the case of a population numbering somewhere about 100,000 persons. I think those words could hardly be used in a case of any city of equal size in the United Kingdom. With facts like this staring him in the face, what is the use of the right hon. and learned Gentleman getting up and endeavouring to show that the condition of these districts justifies the Proclamation which has been issued?
    MR. GIBSON: All I endeavoured to do was to give the actual number of cases tried in Cork. There were five altogether, and in one of these there
    658
    was an acquittal which was of a very unsatisfactory character.
    MR. CLANCY: Notwithstanding those five cases, the Judge said—" The city is absolutely and entirely free from crime;" and I say that the same thing can hardly be said of any place of the same size in any other part of the civilized world; and yet it is to this city that the right hon. Gentleman aplies the Coercion Act. Did anyone ever hear of anything so tyrannical, preposterous, and despotic? I think we can hardly allow this matter to go off as easily as the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to desire in the latter part of his remarks. I must refer, for one moment, at least, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments on the 5th section. It says—
    "The Lord Lieutenant, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, may, from time to time, when it appears to him to be necessary for the prevention, detection, or punishment of crime and outrage,"
    do so and so. He says that the word "and "is to be read there the same as "or." I may be very stupid, but I must say I am not able to grasp the explanation the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave of that astounding statement, and I would just remark that it is very curious that when the Act of Parliament means to say "or" it says it. When you want the section for the "prevention, detection, or punishment of crime,"—that is, for anyone of those purposes—you may say so in your Act. You do not say, in that case, for the "prevention, detection, and punishment of crime and outrage." Not at all; you plainly put the alternative. You may want your powers for the prevention of crime; you may want them for the detection of crime; you may want them for the punishment of crime —when you want certain powers for any one of these purposes the language of the Act is clear and explicit; but in the same line the word "and" occurs, connecting, as plainly as possible, the words "crime" and "cutrage," clearly making it necessary for the two things to co-exist before the section can be put in force; and in these circumstances you ask us to believe that '' and'' means" or." I think it is an insult to the intelligence of anyone to say that "and," in that sentence, means "or," in the face of the fact that you use the word "or," when you want

    659
    to use it, three words before. But, supposing the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct, and that the word "and "means" or "— a statement which, I think, will be received with general incredulity tomorrow throughout the United Kingdom —but, supposing for a moment "and "means "or," I should like to know what answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman can give on this other point? I should like to know why counties, in which neither crime nor outrage is reported to exist, should be subjected to this section? Will the right hon. and teamed Gentleman tell me why Dublin County is subjected to this section? I feel bound to refer to this case again and again, because Dublin County, which I represent, has been about the most peaceful county not only in Ireland, but, I believe, in the civilized world. I mentioned before, by way of a Question in this House, that there has been practically no crime in Dublin County of a serious character, or almost of any other character, for several years. In the Police Returns for June last I find that it is stated that in Dublin County there was one man under constant police protection, and three houses patrolled by police, but that there was no Boycotting, and no serious crime of any kind. I want to know why it is that in Dublin County, to which these figures apply, this Proclamation should be in force? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman get up and answer that question? It is said that there is a man in Dublin County under constant police protection. I do not believe it; and this is one of the reasons why I said last night that which I repeat to-day— namely, that these statistics of Boycotting are simply a mass of fraud concocted by persons interested in maintaining a Coercion régimè, the more easily to enable their own friends to ride rough-shod over the people. It is said that there are three persons who are under police patrol. I apprehend that that statement is also a falsehood, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to mention the names of the persons who are alleged to be so protected. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman laughs at that, but I think it is a serious challenge. I think it is a challenge at which he ought not to laugh. On account of this one man being under
    660
    constant police protection and these three men having police patrols—cases in the existence of which I do not believe— the Government intrusts to two Resident Magistrates the power of adjudicating in cases which, when they do occur, ought certainly to be tried by juries. The excuse for the action of the Government in the case of the County of Dublin and other such counties, is that though these crimes are not committed, and have not been committed for the last 10 years, still they may be committed. This reminds me of the man who used to beat his wife, and who on being remonstrated with on one occasion, and on being told by his wife that she was not speaking to him at all, replied—"For fear you might." That appears to be the argument of the Chief Secretary. It is "for fear there might" be crime in Dublin Country some time or other that he has the audacity to take away from that county one of the greatest of our Constitutional safeguards. But I know the chief reason why Dublin County is included. I know that in that county there are a nest of Orange landlords and land agents going about ever since the Proclamation was issued, riding on horse-back and riding in carriages telling every man they meet— "The National League is proclaimed and now we are able to be at you." It is these men who want a little more power than they have at present, and think they can get it by getting the Coercion Act put in operation. It is to the whisperings of people of this kind, whose character must by this time be known to everyone in Dublin Castle — it is owing to these people that the Government have taken this step, and not because there is any cause for it at all in the character or conduct of the people whose liberty has been robbed from them. We have heard today two very remarkable statements from the Chief Secretary, and I should like to call attention to them. The right hon. Gentleman is confronted now with the fact that his Boycotting Returns are contradicted by his criminal statistics. He cannot get over that fact. There are 700 people reported to be Boycotted and 1,000 persons reported to be under police protection, and yet there were only 15 cases of intimidation all over Ireland during the last quarter. But now we have the right hon. Gentleman

    661
    trying to wriggle out of the difficulty by giving what, for him, is a new definition of Boycotting. I have heard again and again Members on the other side of the House drawing down the cheers of the Assembly by saying that Boycotting was not exclusive dealing, but exclusive dealing sustained, supported, and encouraged by crime and outrage. We never heard anything else before this debate, but last night the right hon. Gentleman said—"Whoever else has made the statement, I have never made it." Well, I have not had time to look through the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, but I will do so, and I shall be very much surprised if I do not find that in making that statement he has contradicted himself. But he says now that Boycotting is not necessarily sustained by outrage, and that outrage has not necessarily a connection with Boycotting. Then what is Boycotting? It is exclusive dealing simply—a perfectly lawful practice; and now he proclaims to the people of England through this House that he is using the Coercion Act because of this innocent Boycotting. Well, I promise him that this fact shall be spread far and wide amongst the people of this country, and I doubt if the result will be so pleasant as he seems to suppose. Again, he makes another admission which I think is very remarkable. He has been driven from pillar to post in defending his Coercion policy. At first, when this discussion began, he said—finding the statistics of crime not to give him any support in the matter—"We do not rely upon the statistics of crime." Then he said, "We rely upon intimidation, upon Boycotting cases, and so on." But now, it appears, he neither relies on the criminal statistics he has himself produced, nor on Boycotting cases, but upon resolutions passed by branches of the National League. I call attention to that fact. He based his chief defence to-day for the step he has taken upon the fact that certain branches of the National League have passed Boycotting resolutions. What do they amount to? He has been able to show that out of 1,800 branches of the National League 20 have passed Boycotting resolutions; and he declared that it is chiefly on the resolutions of these 20 branches, out of 1,800 branches of the League, that he founds his present action, and that he founded, his
    662
    Coercion Bill. Has there ever been so weak a foundation for so large a superstructure? And the foundation is not even so strong as I have stated it; for, as an hon. Member near me reminds me, out of the 20 branches, whose resolutions he relies upon, to sanction his policy, the Secretary to the National League has demolished one-half of them. Now, I could not but admire the simplicity with which the Chief Secretary replied to my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), who asked for the names of the persons alleged to be Boycotted. The excuse was, that if he gave the names the notoriety thereby imparted would aggravate the condition of those persons. My hon. Friend aptly interrupted him and said—" Did you not read resolutions passed by branches of the National League in which persons were denounced by name? "And his answer was—"I read the names because they were published in local newspapers." But it is local notoriety that these people are complaining of, and the right hon. Gentleman adds to local notoriety, general notoriety. The right hon. Gentleman does the very thing in reading out these cases which he says he will not do when we ask him for information. He has said something about the country getting at the truth of this matter, and forming its own opinion of these debates. We have this sort of talk time after time, and we know now how to estimate such a threat. Northwich has been fought and won since this Coercion Bill was introduced, and since a part of it has been put into operation, the Government have sustained other defeats, and probably more are impending. Having something to do with the matter myself, I beg to inform the right hon. Gentleman that I will make it my business to placard all over England, some of the admissions he has made to-day, together with some of the figures which were adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Belfast and my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo, which the right hon. Gentleman has not ventured or dared to correct, and which, while they remain undisputed, knock the bottom out of his whole case. The right hon. Gentleman has declared that he has not had time to look into the statistics—he says he gets so little sleep. Well, we get as little as does the right hon. Gentleman, and we have not

    663
    half the assistance that he has. The right hon. Gentleman has a corps of assistants, all of whom are paid out of the public funds, and notwithstanding all this assistance, he is unable, after a whole Night's notice, to produce a single figure in contradiction of any of the figures which have been produced from these Benches. I promise the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Colleague the Attorney General for Ireland, that these figures shall be placarded all over England. I promise him that some of the admissions he has made tonight, notably the admission that he has placed reliance for his action in proclaiming the League chiefly upon resolutions passed by 20 branches of the League out of 1,800; and; secondly, the admission that he is punishing Ireland for what is not crime at all—namely, for Boycotting, unaccompanied by intimidation—I promise him that those things shall be made known to the people of this country, who will then be shown, for the first time, the utter hollowness of the pretences on which it is attempted, in the name of the Union, to maintain in Ireland one of the most odious tyrannies ever known in any region of the earth.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to intervene for a very few moments before the vote is taken in this important discussion, because there is much that really does not concern simply the terror-stricken districts of Ireland—I mean those districts which are terror-stricken by the tyranny of Her Majesty's Government; but which inevitably involves the interests of this country, and of those whom we have the honour to represent in this House—that is to say, the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. It is not necessary for me to labour the points, but I will merely remind the Committee that this is a Vote involving the taxation of our own constituents. Now, I do not wish to dwell upon the legal technicalities which cost so much discussion last night, and which are costing so much this morning. It is, to me, altogether immaterial, except as exposing the incompetent blundering of Her Majesty's Ministers in the administration of this new fangled Coercion Act. I certainly have not troubled myself over much in my time with the dusty purlieus of the law, or the fine distinctions which lawyers delight to bother themselves about, and I
    664
    do not desire to go into the question of the grammatical fitness of transposing "and" and "or" as it may suit Her Majesty's Ministers—because I believe the common sense of this country will understand "and" to mean "and" and not "or." If there is a transposition of words of that kind, though the words may be insignificant words in themselves, the transposition might lead up to a further tyrannical dealing with our Irish fellow-citizens, and I think that the opinion of this country will not be difficult to arrive at, and that it will not be long before it is made still further manifest, even to the dullest comprehensions on the Tory Benches. I have sat through as many hours of the prolonged debates of the Coercion Act as any hon. Gentleman in this House, and I have no hesitation in stating that my recollection is practically that which has been expressed by hon. Members on this side of the House with respect of the intention which was in the mind of the House generally when it was asked to pass the different clauses of the Bill. I refer particularly to what was the condition under which the Proclamation was to take place. I am certain that the opinion of the House on the other side, as well as on this side of the House —although, of course, the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite are formed to suit the designs of Her Majesty's Government, so that they do not count for much—but the opinion of the House generally, and the opinion of the country I am certain was that the House was asked to pass the Act, in the first instance, because of the alleged terrible condition of Ireland. It was understood that the Proclamation of particular districts was, in the first place, to depend upon those districts being inflamed districts—being districts where crime and outrage were not merely imaginary, such as Her Majesty's Ministers are now resting their case upon, but overt crime was actually spoken of. We had special districts held up to us as models of tyranny and of the generally disturbed condition of particular parts of Ireland. The Counties of Kerry and Clare were pointed out as districts where we were sure that it was absolutely necessary that the Proclamation should take force and effect, and in which this new and improved method of procedure should be put into operation. We were never

    665
    once given to understand that the entire country was to be proclaimed wholesale, as has been done. I am perfectly certain that even the most Orange of the Tory Party opposite would have been impelled to utter a faint word of remonstrance if they had been given for a moment to understand that the most peaceable parts of their own districts and neighbourhoods were to be proclaimed under this savage and tyrannical measure. Well, then, we have a right to protest in the strongest language against this breach of faith, not by any means unusual with Her Majesty's Ministers. Their breach of their sacred pledges—because pledges made on the floor of this House may be termed sacred—I protest against it as earnestly as my hon. Friends. It turns out that, practically, no crime or outrage exists in Ireland. That is, of course, speaking generally, that no criminal offences are committed there. I have studied with some care the long lists and tabulated statistics which have been presented to the House from time to time about crime and outrage in Ireland; and what strikes an Englishman more in looking over these tabulated statistics is this—the extraordinary method by which every form, every conceivable form of offence, is netted by Her Majesty's Government and labelled '' agrarian crime." Why, Sir, there are 50 crimes so-called —or at least a dozen, not to put it higher—which are labelled and placed on the Table of this House as agrarian crime and outrage—crimes which happen constantly in this country, but which no one ever dreams of specifying as "agrarian." There are offences and crimes set down in this tabulated statement presented to the House which have, I will venture to say, no more to do with agrarian offences, and no more to do with the land war which is raging in Ireland—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I see no connection between the hon. Member's remarks and the Vote before the Committee.
    MR. CONYBEARE: We have had, Sir, this tabulated statement placed before us, and on the strength of it we have been asked to sanction the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government. We have been asked to sanction the Proclamation of the whole of Ireland on the ground that these statistics show
    666
    that a prodigious amount of crime and outrage exists in Ireland. But I will not pursue that any further. I was showing that the people who commit these offences are no more agrarian offenders than the pickpockets in London can be called agrarian offenders. But passing from that, what is the lesson of the statistics. I will accept the assurance of Her Majesty's Government that these statistics are prepared with all the bona fides that they and their myrmidons in Ireland are capable of. What did that prove? Why, it proved that crime and outrage in Ireland is infinitesimal. Besides, the charges of the Judges to the juries prove that. They were fast enough in quoting the charges of the Judges in the early part of the Session; but we never hear the charges quoted now, because we know very well that they disprove every statement which the Government have made. They cannot find in these charges any proof of the existence of crime and outrage—they cannot even find in them any justification for anything contained in the Crimes Act. But having this toy—this weapon of tyranny and intimidation in their possession— they are determined to use it. Why? Because, forsooth, if they do not they would be laughed at and ridiculed as, if we are to believe the information we receive, the electors of Huntingdonshire have laughed at them for having passed this Act. They have changed their tactics. Finding that there is no crime and outrage to punish with this new weapon of theirs, they say—"Oh; but there is Boycotting." What is Boycotting? I have no hesitation in saying that from beginning to end of this debate we have been given to understand by the most eminent authorities on those Benches that Boycotting meant the most abominable crime and outrage. It turns out that though there may be Boycotting, there is practically no outrage and intimidation or tyranny connected with it. It is all very well to talk of 500 cases of Boycotting; but they have to prove that there is something more than exclusive dealing, than refusal to shake hands with a man, and refusal to have anything to do with him connected with this Boycotting. They are unable to prove anything of the kind. There was a celebrated case mentioned last night—the case of the poor child who died, which the right hon.

    667
    Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made so much of in the early debates. You find that placarded all over the country at the present moment—you find an account of the stricken father burying his own child. You know that there is no truth in the story—the story has been exploded over and over again. The Government cannot prove that there is either crime or outrage in Ireland, so they come down to us now with a new tale, saying—" We never said that crime and outrage were necessarily connected with Boycotting at all." I have heard so many utterances on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that I cannot carry them all in my mind, so that I cannot pledge myself as to what he has said on previous occasions with regard to the Boycotting culminating in intimidation. But certainly the whole gist of his argument has been hitherto that Boycotting is intimately connected with intimidation and outrage. Now, when that ground of argument has been cut from under their feet, the Government come forward and tell us—"We do not propose anything of the kind. We mean simply exclusive dealing, isolation, and what is popularly called sending people to Coventry." If that is the only ground that they have to allege, I say that they are on the horns of a dilemme. They must show that it is only in Ireland, and that it is not in this country that there is an urgent claim for this Proclamation, and that a similar Proclamation is not necessary to protect people in England from wealthy persons and squires. Why, if this were a fitting occasion, I could mention some hundreds of cases where people in this country are not only isolated and treated in a cold manner, "which is complained of in the case of Irish Boycotting; but where people are starved and deprived of their means of livelihood. If there is justification for this allegation for Boycotting in Ireland, there are stronger claims for even more stringent measures being put in force in this country against the Primrose League. They taunt us with having urged the poor poverty stricken people of Ireland, who have been evicted from their holdings, to take forcible possession, and they tell us that no such taunts can be urged against anybody in this country. Well, it is no doubt a great grievance it does not exist in this country. If it did
    668
    exist in this country, there would probably be much less tyranny than there is.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already told the hon. Member that he is not addressing himself to the question before the Committee.
    MR. CONYBEARE: The question of forcible possession has been referred to; but I will not go into it at length.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Of course, it has been referred to; but the hon. Member is entering into a long discussion as to what ought to be done in England.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I will not dwell upon that point any further in obedience to your ruling, Sir, nor will I trouble the Committee with a single word as to the question of law, or the discretion of Her Majesty's Ministers on that point in Ireland. All I would say is, that whatever the law may be, there is such a thing as equity and as humanity, and that we should insist upon the one as well as upon the other. Sir, we have no hesitation in corning to the conclusion that the people are becoming more alive to the tyrannical proceedings of Her Majesty's Government, and that the Government will receive, as it merits, the increasing condemnation of the English people.
    MR. M'LABEN: It seems to me that there are so many specific points connected with this Vote, that it would be a pity to wander over so wide a field as my hon. Friend has done who has just spoken. I shall, therefore, only endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy), with regard to the inaccuracy of the Returns laid upon the Table of the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, especially with reference to those persons who are receiving police protection. Here is a case specifically charged against the Office of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is the head—that the Returns laid upon the Table of the House are inaccurate. The hon. Member for North Dublin deliberately states that in the part of the county which he himself represents there are persons who are put down as being under police protection, and he says that he does not believe in the accuracy of any one of the alleged cases. I have no knowledge to enable me to say whether they are true or not. We have, on the one hand, the Returns

    669
    showing that a certain number of persons are under the protection of the police, and we have the Irish Members unanimously asking that the names of the persons receiving that police protection should be given. If Her Majesty's Government will accede to that request of Irish Members, we shall then know the truth of the matter. If these cases occurred in England, and if the right hon. Gentleman were an English instead of an Irish Minister, he would have no hesitation, I believe, in complying with the request of a body of English Members to furnish names; and I cannot comment too strongly on the fact that Irish Members are not treated as being on the same footing as English Members. The great mass of the Members from Ireland have made a reasonable request, with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland refuses to comply. We have had the case of the City and County of Cork cited, and it has been clearly proved that Cork was exceedingly free from crime, and yet no reply has come from the Government. The only reply given is that it is placed under the provisions of the Crimes Act. For my part, I regret that the Government have not spared those parts of Ireland which are so completely free from crime as that to which my hon. Friend has alluded. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should have borne generous testimony to the fact that there are in Ireland many districts which are free from crime, and that those parts of the country should have been spared the ignominy of Proclamation. If there had been crime of any serious nature there, I should have said that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in exercising his discretion, had done what the majority of the House would have expected from him in proclaiming those districts; but the right hon. Gentleman, I think, should have waited until there was serious crime, and not taken this step in advance. The whole thing could have been done after crime had been shown to exist. There was no reason for the step he has taken in the case of Dublin or Cork; no outrage has taken place there, and yet the Irish people are to be insulted by this undue and hasty application of the Crimes Act. I think English Members should protest against the action of the right hon. Gentleman the
    670
    Chief Secretary for Ireland—first, with regard to the wholesale way in which he has made use of a portion of the Act where no need for that course existed; and, in the second place, with regard to the manner in which he has laid the Returns of Boycotting on the Table of the House, and the way in which he had refused to allow the House to judge of the accuracy of those Returns. I am yet in hope, however, that he will bear some testimony to the peaceable state of Ireland. I am not speaking in a carping way; but if he would bear that testimony, if he would publicly state that he recognizes that Ireland is free from serious outrage, or more free than it has been for years past, if he would do something generous to show the Irish people that there is some reason for putting into operation the law for the preservation of law and order, he might go some way to reconcile them to an Act which they bitterly resent. It is perhaps too much to expect from the right hon. Gentleman; but I believe, at any rate, that such a course would tend to lessen the bitterness of the Crimes Act. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, he might show a more conciliatory manner to Irish Members, both in respect of his answers and the tone which he adopts towards them; and I think that would create a better feeling in Ireland and on this side of the House.
    MR. GILHOOLY: The first matter to which I desire to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is that of an agent and Justice of the district which I represent, who it is alleged altered a receipt for the payment of rent by a tenant who wanted to take the benefit of the Arrears Act. On the occasion of the trial which took place subsequently, the Judge stated that it was clear that the receipt had been altered.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise to Order. The hon. Gentleman is not discussing anything connected with the Executive in Ireland; and what he is saying is, therefore, irrelevant to this Vote.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I was going to make it relevant by showing that it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to investigate the matter.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The discussion of this question is quite inapplicable to the Vote before the Committee.
    DR. FOX: I asked the attention some time ago of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the case of a man who was committed for seven days, and who was kept in prison, notwithstanding the fact that an excellent gentleman and a Protestant in the district offered to become bail for him. A certificate was presented to show that the life of the person he was charged with assaulting was not in danger; but the magistrate, after keeping those interested in the case waiting for two hours, and after consultation with his clerk, refused to accept bail for the accused.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this is connected with the action of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    DR. FOX: I bring it forward to show that the Chief Secretary and his assistants did not perform their duty; they failed in getting a truthful account of the proceedings, and the reply sent to the right hon. Gentleman was a tissue of falsehoods.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is impossible to go into that matter on this Vote.
    MR. HOOPER: I trust there is no doubt as to the relevancy of the matter which I am about to bring before the Committee. About a month since I brought under the notice of this House in the form of a Question the resolution of the magistrates in the City of Cork calling upon the Irish Government to grant an inquiry into the manner in which certain disturbances were suppressed in the City of Cork on the 21st of June. To that Question I received no satisfactory reply, and on a second appeal the refusal previously given was repeated. The matter arose out of the Jubilee celebrations on the 21st of June. A certain newspaper of the City of Cork made itself conspicuous by its celebration on that occasion. It was, of course, within its right in doing so. Certain disturbances arose, and the Local Authorities were, of course, within their right in suppressing those disturbances. But it is against the manner in which those disturbances were suppressed that my complaint lies. The reports in the local newspapers, and the evidence of all the witnesses, go to show that those disturbances were suppressed in a disorderly and riotous manner by the authorities who put the law in force in the city. There were no proper pro-
    672
    visions made to keep the impulses of the police force within proper bounds, and the consequence was, that men were maltreated and innocent persons, women and children were injured; whereas, if there had been a strict supervision and control of the men whose duty it is to protect the lives of the citizens of Cork, these deplorable events would have been avoided in a city which is more free from crime than any in Ireland. Of course, if the appeal had come from an ordinary body of guardians, or even from the Corporation of the City of Cork, I should not have wondered if the right hon. Gentleman had treated it with that supercilious disregard we have so often witnessed in this House. If it had come from a branch of the National League, I should not have wondered at the right hon. Gentleman taking no notice of the appeal, although on the branch of the League in the City of Cork are some of the most respectable citizens and merchants, including the Mayor; but this appeal came from a body of 20 magistrates in the City of Cork, representing every shade of political and religious opinion. It did not come from any rump or section of the magistracy; it emanated from a large meeting called at the request of the Mayor, and if there is anything which to my mind shows how utterly this Government is out of touch with the feeling of the Irish people, it is the signal disregard with which the magistrates were treated by the right hon. Gentleman, who, I regret to say, has left the House without deigning to listen to the statement I have to make. At a meeting of the City Magistrates, specially convened by the Mayor on the 27th of June, it was proposed by Mr. James Lane, J.P., seconded by Lieutenant Colonel Donegal, J.P., and resolved unanimously—
    " That we, the Mayor of Cork, and the several magistrates of the City, assembled at the instance of the Mayor to consider the arrangements of the Royal Irish Constabulary on the occasion of the riots which took place in this City on the 21st of June instant, are of opinion that a commission should be immediately issued to take inquiry upon oath as to the cause and result of such riots, and who are, or were responsible, therefor."
    The right hon. Gentleman having returned after his temporary absence, I trust he will listen to the statement I have to make. I wish to know whe-

    673
    ther the Chief Secretary really personally considered this matter, or whether he did not place himself entirely in the hands of Captain Plunkett, who has behaved in Ireland as despotically as any Turkish Pasha. A more reasonable request could not have been addressed to any Government than this application for inquiry; but, even had the request been made in unreasonable language, I should say that the fact of the resolution being backed by 20 magistrates of all shades of political and religious opinion should have been quite sufficient to give it passport to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The resolution and the letter of the Mayor were forwarded to Dublin Castle, arid on the 29th of June a letter was received from General Buller, stating that he was directed by the Lord Lieutenant to acknowledge the receipt of the Mayor's letter of the 28th instant, and the accompanying copy of a resolution, adopted at a meeting of the magistrates held at Cork. No further notice of the communication having been received, on the 6th of July the Secretary, Mr. Giltinan, wrote the following letter, addressed to the Under Secretary at Dublin Castle:—
    "Sir,—Referring to your letter of the 29th ultimo, acknowledging receipt of the Mayor's letter of the 28th, and of its accompanying copy of a resolution adopted at a meeting of magistrates held in Cork, in reference to the disturbances which took place in the City on the 21st ultimo, I am directed by the Mayor to ask you whether he is to regard your communication as final, or if he may expect to receive an explicit answer to the request for a sworn inquiry contained in the magistrates' resolution."
    That letter was written a week after the reply was received from General Buller, and another week elapsed before the following answer was received. General Buller wrote from Dublin Castle on the 12th of July that he was directed by the Lords Justices to acknowledge the receipt of the Secretary's further letter of the 6th instant on the subject of the resolution recently adopted by the Magistrates of the City of Cork, praying that an inquiry should be held into disturbances which occurred in the City of Cork on the 21st ultimo, and, in reply, acquainted him, for the information of the Mayor of Cork, that the Government had no information which led them to think that adequate reason existed for holding such inquiry. That very unsatisfactory
    674
    answer appears to me to show that Her Majesty's Government had no desire to get information, because they never asked the Mayor on what grounds the resolution was passed, and they did not say that they had made inquiry in any quarter as to whether there were sufficient grounds for passing the resolution; they simply say they have no information which leads them to think that adequate reasons exist for holding such inquiry. In consequence of that, on the 20th of July a further meeting of the city magistrates was specially convened by the Mayor. The Mayor was in the chair, and on hearing read the resolution unanimously passed by 20 magistrates of the city on the 27th ultimo, and the replies of Sir Redvers Buller, Under Secretary, of the 29th ultimo and the 12th instant, on the subject of the inquiry asked for in the resolution referred to, it was resolved—
    '' That, seeing it is an ascertained fact that a riot of a serious character took place in this city on the 21st ultimo, and that property to a large extent was on that occasion damaged and destroyed, that it is alleged by the Mayor that unnecessary violence was used by members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and that several persons were severely injured; that it is also alleged by the Mayor that the arrangements made by the authorities were not adequate, and that all these matters were reported by the public journals—from these facts and statements the magistrates are still of opinion that the inquiry asked for by the resolution of the 27th ultimo ought to be granted."
    This was signed by the Mayor, Mr. J. O'Brien. The foregoing resolution was transmitted on the 21st July, with the following note from the chief clerk of the Justices of Cork: —
    " Sir,— I have the honour to transmit herewith a resolution passed by the city magistrates at a meeting held on yesterday, 20th instant, again asking the Government to grant the inquiry referred to in the former resolution adopted by them on the 27th ultimo."
    To this communication the following reply was received on the 29th of July from Sir Redvers Buller:—
    " I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 21st instant, transmitting a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting of magistrates of the City of Cork held on the 20th instant, respecting their application for a sworn inquiry into the disturbances which recently took place in the city. I am directed to refer the magistrates to the reply sent on the 12th instant, and to add that no evidence in support of the allegations contained in their resolutions has been received by the Government."

    675
    Now, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he made any attempt to get this information, or did he intend that the magistrates should forward him particulars. Did he take any steps to ascertain whether this was a reasonable or unreasonable request? I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not place himself entirely in the hands of Captain Plunkett, the Resident Magistrate in the district? Now, a good deal depends upon the conduct of Captain Plunkett with reference to this particular meeting. He was invited by the Mayor of Cork to attend, and whatever his politics may be it should be remembered that upon him depends the peace of the city. How did Captain Plunkett treat this respectful request from the Mayor of Cork?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now travelling beyond what is appropriate to this Vote. The question appropriate to the Vote on which we are now engaged is as to whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland should have ordered an inquiry; but to go into the occurrences themselves is foreign to the Question before the Committee.
    MR. HOOPER: I intended simply to show the manner in which the Chief Secretary had treated this request, and I have made a challenge to him to say whether he placed himself in the hands of Captain Plunkett.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Up to that point the Member was speaking quite relevantly; but when he proceeded to deal with the conduct of Captain Plunkett he went beyond this Vote.
    MR. HOOPER: I now ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to give an explicit statement to the Committee of his reasons for refusing to place confidence in 20 duly elected magistrates of the Irish Bench. If these men were fit for their commissions as magistrates they were surely worthy of the confidence of Her Majesty's Government. If they were not worthy of the confidence of Her Majesty's Government in respect of this matter, why in the name of common sense are they retained on the Magisterial Bench? It is an insult to every one of these men that Her Majesty's Government did not pay attention to the request of such a body. What regard can the people of Cork or the people of the district pay to laws which are en-
    676
    forced by these men when Her Majesty's Government refuse to receive the representations of 20 magistrates of the locality of all shades of political and religious opinion? The statement, I say, deserved the most serious consideration of the Government. Even if the right hon. Gentleman had not time to examine this Notice which has been served upon him by 20 magistrates of the City of Cork, let him examine into the facts now. What we want is an assurance that there will be an inquiry in order that the people of Cork shall have some guarantee that they will not be left to the uncontrolled and brutal discretion or indiscretion of Captain Plunkett during the coming winter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no objection to the action of the hon. Member in bringing forward this case in which he naturally takes an interest, and I will state very briefly to the Committee the course taken by the Government in this matter. But first allow me to correct the statement of the hon. Gentleman which may have misled the Committee, unintentionally of course, into the belief that the resolution referred to was that of all the magistrates.
    MR. HOOPER: I said it was the action of a body of the magistrates, 20 in number, who obeyed the summons of the Mayor.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I admit that the number is considerable. There were 20 out of a total number of 48, and they were all the magistrates who were not absent in this country on the occasion of the Jubilee. However, I do not want to press that point, because the action of the Government was governed by considerations of an entirely different character. The hon. Gentleman asks how we came to disregard this request. But does not the hon. Gentleman see that something more than the information furnished is necessary to institute an inquiry into a case of riot of this kind? The Executive clearly ought not under any circumstances to grant a formal, an elaborate, and a sworn inquiry, unless there is something in the nature of a strong primâ facie case in connection with some person or persons connected with the riot, and unless there is some reason to believe that the inquiry would elicit facts which, in the opinion of the Government, would justify the taking of special measures in the future. That

    677
    was the justification for the Belfast inquiry; but there is no such justification in the case which occurred at Cork. The hon. Member has not alleged any ground for supposing that any future advantage would be gained. His only ground has been that the inquiry was asked fur by 20 magistrates of Cork.
    MR. HOOPER: Will the light hon. Gentleman allow me to say that I was not permitted to go into the facts at all?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There being no facts, in the opinion of the Government, to support a primâ facie case, nor any prospect of any person being connected with the riot in the way I have indicated, I see no reason to go back on the decision at which the Irish Government arrived and stated to the magistrates at Cork.
    MR. DEASY: I altogether fail to gather from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to this statement of my hon. Friend that the Government made any inquiry whatsoever into the facts of the case. We wish the right hon. Gentleman to state to us his reasons for not making inquiry into the case. The only reason against this appears to be that the hon. Member has not made out a primâ facie case; but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, when he began to go outside the preliminary statement of the case, he was not allowed to proceed by the Chairman. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman has offered no adequate excuse for not granting the inquiry demanded by my hon. Friend. I regret that we are precluded from going into the whole question; but we say that we are entitled to have from the right hon. Gentleman an explicit statement as to the course which the Government took to ascertain the facts of the case—a statement showing to whom they applied, and the nature of the accounts they received. We say that, so far from the facts contradicting the statement of the magistrates, the Government made no effort to get any information. We know that they refused to consult anyone but the Resident Magistrate or Police Authority; and the right hon. Gentleman excuses himself by saying that my hon. Friend has not made out a primâ facie case, when the truth is that he was not allowed to go into the facts. If the right hon. Gentleman, is not to rely on the representation
    678
    of 20 magistrates, on whom or what is he to rely? Many of those magistrates were Conservatives; and as to their not being the majority, I do not believe that where there are 48 men on the Commission of the Peace, it is possible to get the whole of them together to pass a resolution of this kind. Are we to assume that if 17 of the magistrates came together, you would not take any action because the whole number was not present? I have a great interest in the City of Cork, political and otherwise; and I find that almost every magistrate who was in Cork at the time, and who could by any possibility take part in the deliberations, was present. The resolution was adopted unanimously by the large number of magistrates of all shades of opinion who attended the meeting. If the resolution had been passed over the heads of the Tory minority, I could have understood the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to accede to the demands of the magistrates; but the very signing of the resolution by the Mayor and his brother magistrates shows conclusively that their only object was to have this matter sifted to the bottom, and to put the responsibility for the riot on the proper shoulders. The Mayor said—
    " I am ready to accept any responsibility for the people of Cork which may be fairly called for "by the Government for those disturbances; and we assert that these riots were deliberately brought about by the action of the police, and that it is unfair to screen them. The Government cannot, with any show of justice or fair play, refuse to grant an investigation into these disturbances which took place in the city, and which, I have no hesitation in asserting, were brought about by the action of Captain Plunkett and the policemen under his charge."
    It must be clear that the only object of these gentlemen was to clear up, as far as they could, certain rumours and reports spread about the city in connection with, the Police Authorities; and all I can say with reference to that portion of the statement of my hon. Friend is that the course which the Government has now adopted is to take the administration of the law out of the hands of those men who are supposed to administer it in the ordinary course; they have set up another practice which can only have the effect of driving out of the minds of the people any small respect which may be lingering there for the law. If there is anyone on the Irish Bench more likely

    679
    than another to entertain a biassed view of the conduct of the people of Ireland it is Judge O'Brien; but he was compelled to declare that the city was perfectly free from crime. I understand it is customary with the police to lay before the Judge at Assizes, when he comes to administer the law, documents connected with crime and violence. Some of these are private documents, no doubt; but, surely, if documents showing that the people had acted in a bad way had been laid before the Judge, he would not have been the first to say that the calendar was light. I am informed that the Police Authorities refused to make any report as to this case, and that they refused to have the question raised one way or the other. The position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman is quite in accordance with the attitude which he has assumed since he entered upon his present Office. If the Government appoint a number of men to the magistracy; if these men come together and declare that an investigation into any particular matter is required, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has a right to set up the opinion of a Resident Magistrate against the opinion which they express? I would ask him to supersede the magistrates altogether rather than that, in opposition to a body composed as it is in Ireland of men of all shades of opinion, including Tories and Orangemen, he should take the advice of such men as Captain Plunkett. I should be even willing for him to do that, because the effect would be to discredit the system in the opinion of the people. I am, however, satisfied in one sense with the action of the right hon. Gentleman, because I believe that his conduct towards the local magistrates will drive them into such open revolt against the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's administration that they will refuse to carry out such portions of the law as the right hon. Gentleman wishes them to carry out, and throw up the Commission of the Peace altogether, in order to allow Captain Plunkett and others like him to administer the law of the country. On the other hand, I think that law and order could be very easily maintained if the magistrates were allowed to exercise that discretion which their appointment to the Commission of the Peace implies.
    MR. FLYNN: I think the Committee will be of opinion that the tone of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland towards the hon. Member for South-East Cork (Mr. Hooper) is a remarkable indication of the manner and temper in which the right hon. Gentleman and the Irish Administration generally receive representations from Gentlemen on this side of the House, and all representations coming from Ireland asking for inquiry into local circumstances in order to get justice and fair play. The indication is unmistakable, and must be apparent to every Member of the Committee. What is his position in this case? It is that the right hon. Gentleman gets up in this House, and puts the reply of the Resident Magistrate against the entire weight of opinion of 20 local magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman is prepared when any case of this kind is brought before the House to treat as final and convincing any story put on paper by the parties who are accused, and are, consequently, interested. In this case of the disturbances in Cork in June last, and the action of the Cork magistrates, what was the reply to the Under Secretary? General Buller says that the Government have no adequate information on which to grant an inquiry. But have they looked for information, and, if so, where? If they have looked anywhere for information it is to Captain Plunkett, who is an interested party, and has actually screened the constables who have abused their powers. Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that this will strengthen the hands of the Mayors and the magistrates in dealing with disturbances which may occur from time to time, and in the possible collisions which may take place between the people on the one hand and the constables on the other? The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the whole case, and I say that it is nothing but the most unblushing assertion that enables him to give calm and judicial replies of the kind he has made to the Committee. General Buller says that no evidence in support of the Resolution has been laid before the Government. But what the magistrates demanded was that an investigation should be made in order to obtain evidence. What pains have the Government taken to look for this evidence?

    681
    They have taken none whatever. They have gone to Captain Plunkett, a man in love with arbitrary power, whose conduct has been repeatedly brought before this House as a violation of the Constitutional right of the people of the City find County of Cork. It comes to this— that the right him. Gentleman endorses the action of the constables, and is prepared to justify the conduct of Captain Plunkett, and utterly ignore all representations made from other quarters. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly the ingenuity of the sophist to a most captivating degree. He says that unless there is a strong primâ facie case against certain parties an inquiry cannot be granted. Well, we take the right hon. Gentleman at his word. From whom does he get his information? I presume, in the first place, it comes from Dublin Castle, from Sir Redvers Buller, and I may presume that he gets it from Captain Plunkett. Here you have the chain complete. The right hon. Gentleman stands at this Table; Sir Redvers Buller is in Dublin Castle; there is the telegraph between them, and again you have the latter telegraphing to Cork to Captain Plunkett, and it is on this statement of Captain Plunkett that the right hon. Gentleman coolly states in this House that unless a strong primâ facie case is made against these parties our representations cannot be listened to. No matter how serious or grave the question, or how earnestly we press our views with regard to social order in Ireland, and the avoidance of disturbances, nil our representations in this House and the representations of the magistrates go for nothing. The right hon. Gentleman cannot, at any rate, contend that these representations asking for inquiry are made by the local branches of the National League, or by so-called agitators and men who are opposed to social order and peace in Ireland. They are made by men who have a much larger interest in social order in Ireland than the right hon. Gentleman would take, and a far larger interest than would be taken by Captain Plunkett. They are made by men who are interested in the peace and prosperity of the people of Cork. On what grounds, then, do you refuse to grant an inquiry? I assert that the reason why a full inquiry is refused, and why all such inquiries are refused, is because the right hon.
    682
    Gentleman takes his information from interested parties. I would tell the right hon. Gentleman what our impression is with regard to cases of this kind. It is that gentlemen appointed in the capacity of Resident Magistrates, like Captain Plunkett, are distinctly interested in the prolongation of a state of disorder in Ireland; they are interested in the continuation of their employment at large salaries; they are interested because if peace and order reign in Ireland their occupation is gone. And the right hon. Gentleman pits the simple word of a man so deeply interested, a man who must, from the necessities of his position and the necessities of the case, support the police, no matter how unjustifiable their action may be—he pits the biassed statement of an arbitrary individual in Cork against the wishes of 20 magistrates. I should like, before I resume my seat, to refer to an observation made in reply to a strong case put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). The right hon. Gentleman is very indignant that we cast doubt on the official Returns relating to persons under police protection. We do cast doubt on those Returns; we impugn their accuracy; we say that they are made by interested parties; we impeach them upon the same grounds as we impeach the right hon. Gentleman's claim to take the evidence of Captain Plunkett against the evidence of 20 magistrates. The stronger the evidence of Boycotting, the greater the number of persons protected by the police on paper, the stronger the grounds for the retention of Captain Plunkett and men like him in their positions, who are interested in maintaining the state of things which prevails in the country. Therefore, we do impugn these official Returns; and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to got over our distinct allegation that they are prepared and concocted by interested parties in Ireland, he will lay before the House such information as will allow us to test the reliability of the Returns. The right hon. Gentleman says he cannot give the names of the people who are receiving police protection, because that would give them notoriety; but I would point out that when it suits his case he is quite ready to read extracts; it is only when it does not suit his case that the right hon. Gentleman withholds in-

    683
    formation, I entreat the right hon. Gentleman to consider our proposal—namely, that if he will not give the names and addresses of the persons alleged to be Boycotted and under police protection, he shall give, at least, the town lands where they are, without the names. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to furnish a Return of the town lands where the police protection has been given, which will give us the chance of testing the matter without bringing into notoriety the persons protected? The town lands are sufficiently minute for our purposes, and sufficiently wide for that of the right hon. Gentleman. Will he give us a guarantee that this information will be forthcoming? The right hon. Gentleman makes no sign. If he does not, our position will be immeasurably strengthened, and we shall be able to say when we return to Ireland that not alone are these statistics concocted, but that the right hon. Gentleman has taken no steps to show that they are accurate and true.
    MR. HOOPER: I wish to impress upon hon. Gentlemen the necessity of following the dates I have quoted in connection with this matter, because upon them a great deal depends. On the 29th of June Sir Redvers Buller acknowledges the receipt of the request of 20 magistrates of Cork for this inquiry; on the 6th of July the Mayor wrote to ask if the letter was to be regarded as final; on the 12th of July Sir Redvers Buller, after the lapse of a week, writes to say that the Government have no information which leads them to think that adequate reason exists for holding such inquiry. Now, I ask this question. Did the Government inquire during the fortnight which elapsed? If they wished this inquiry to be held, and if they wished confidence to be restored to the minds of the people of Cork in this matter, why did they not examine into the facts? Instead of doing that, they put at the end of the letter I have read a vague statement as to the want of information, which might be taken to mean that they had made inquiry and could get no information. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to say if the Government made inquiry, and, if so, of whom? If their intentions were bonâ fide, why do they refuse the inquiry asked for? I trust my hon.
    684
    Friends will not allow this discussion to close without obtaining from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that this case will be investigated.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman asks if sufficient facts were before the Government whether the inquiry would be held? Of course, if any statement is made which would justify the course in their opinion it would induce them to make such inquiry; but I would point out that what the hon. Gentleman asks for would require an Act of Parliament.
    MR. SEXTON: I wish to mention a case in which my constituents are concerned. I refer to the Portrush case, which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will recollect was the ease of an attack made upon a body of Foresters who were on an excursion. I am in possession of some further information which is supplied by the public Press to-day. The Chief Secretary for Ireland appears to have been in some doubt as to whether the blame for the disorder which occurred ought to be laid on the Foresters or on the Orangemen. It appears that eight persons have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour, and the Crown Solicitor declared that the Foresters and excursionists had given no provocation whatever. It is admitted that they fired no shots, although the Chief Secretary said they did, and the magistrate declared that there was no justification for the attack. These Foresters are a respectable and decent body of men; and whenever they take their annual excursion, no matter where they go, they are met at the termination of their excursions by a body of roughs who assemble, according to a plan previously arranged, for the purpose of assaulting them. Before they went on this excursion they gave notice to the police, who made no adequate arrangements for their protection. I am informed that the organizing of the disorder had been going on for a week beforehand. A body of men were picked and organized for the purpose of breaking the law; they went by excursion train; their tickets were paid for out of a certain purse. Now, will the Government any longer refuse this inquiry; will they any longer deny that the responsibility for this disorder does not he upon the Foresters? Stones

    685
    were thrown at the train, and a lady inside the train was hurt. The responsibility, if there should be a recurrence of these disgraceful proceedings, will lie with the Government if they refuse an inquiry. I maintain that the origin of these disturbances is attributable to the action of the man who organized the body of men at Coleraine and paid their railway fares to Portrush. Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary proclaim County Antrim under the 1st section of the Crimes Act; will he inquire what man organized the roughs of Coleraine? If the inquiry I ask is refused we shall know what to think of the conduct of the Government. I call upon the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour), as one who endeavours to preserve a reputation for frankness, to admit, in face of the language of his own magistrates, that the blame for the recent disturbances lies with the Orangemen and not with the National Foresters.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to point out that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) ought to be grateful on behalf of his clients that the Crimes Act has been passed, because if it had not been for that Act there would not in all probability have been a conviction of some of the Orange rioters. The first use made of the power given by the Crimes Act has been to convict certain Orange rioters who were concerned in these riots. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that I and my right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel King-Harman) have in this House asserted or implied that the first provocation was given by the excursionists. Now, in the various observations I have made on the subject, I have always and consistently asserted that so far as my information went—and that information appears to have been confirmed by the hon. Gentleman—the first provocation came from the roughs who went from Coleraine to Portrush. But what I have said in addition to that is that, much as I deplore the provocation, I do not think it was adequate justification for the excursionists, on their return home, firing revolvers from the windows of the train upon the unarmed crowd, who, from the position of the train, could not, and did not, make any aggression on the excursionists. That view, I am bound to say, I still adhere to. The hon. Gentleman says the police did not make adequate
    686
    arrangements to guard against disturbance. The police made all the arrangements that were in their power; and I think that probably nothing will more conduce to the prevention of any recurrence of this kind of outrage than the fact that seven or eight of these rioters have been summarily convicted. It is upon such a kind of inquiry as that which has taken place in this particular case that I shall really depend for the prevention of the repetition of the scenes which both sides of the House alike deplore. I confess I greatly regret it has not been found possible to produce evidence by which the persons who fired the shots from the train could be brought up and dealt with in a similarly summary fashion. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether I will not proclaim County Antrim under the 1st section of the Crimes Act, in order that a secret inquiry shall be held. If we thought that a secret inquiry would lead to the detection of the offenders I would consider the propriety of suggesting to the Government the Proclamation of the county, as the hon. Gentleman suggests; but nothing I have heard leads me to believe that any such secret inquiry would produce the desired effect.
    MR. SEXTON: When I tell the right hon. Gentleman that the battalion that attacked was organized in the town of Coleraine, and that out of a certain purse there came the money which paid for the transport of the 150 men from Coleraine to Portrush, does he not consider that I make out a case for inquiry? Does he not consider that the person who organized the attacking party is really responsible for the whole of the disorder?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The holding of a secret inquiry depends upon whether it would result in the promotion of the interests of justice. It does not depend upon the fact that some of the perpetrators of the outrage are unknown.
    MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): I suppose, in point of fact, the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of his own information; that in this case it was some magistrate who organized the attacking party. He does not want to find out whether it was or not. My experience of the North of Ireland is, that generally these disorders are organized by magistrates. I have been attacked by a crowd myself who

    687
    were brought, and paid for by a magistrate who now sits as a Member of this House, and who led the crowd on to the attack. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) should not avail himself of the 1st section of the Crimes Act and hold a secret inquiry in this case.
    MR. SEXTON: All of the eight convicted men but two had witnesses who swore these men had nothing to do with the matter. Do the Government think it worth their attention to consider whether these witnesses who swore to the innocence of the men ought to be prosecuted for perjury?
    MR. M. J. KENNY: There is one question I wish to put to the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King - Harman), and which I put last night; perhaps he will be able to answer it now. It has reference to the Veterinary Department in Dublin. I desire a statement from the Government as to the means that are being taken to suppress pleuro-pneumonia in Dublin and the neighbourhood. The continued existence of pleuro-pneumonia in Dublin and its vicinity is a scandal to the Government, and results in great loss to the people. I want to know whether this Government, who are supposed to represent the agricultural interest, intend to take any steps to stamp out this disease, which they can easily do if they wish?
    THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HAEMAN): I was prepared to answer the hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. J. Kenny) last night; but he was followed by an hon. Friend of his who put some other question, and in the course of the debate this particular matter was lost sight of. I think that if the hon. Member will consider what the Government have done in regard to the existence of pieuro-pneumonia in Ireland, especially in Dublin and district, he will find they have done a great deal since they have been in Office. They recognize the importance of stamping out pleuro-pneumonia to the full extent to which the foot-and-mouth disease was stamped out. We are fully alive to the fact that if proper precautions are not taken in Ireland, especially near Dublin, Irish dealers will run the risk of having English and Scotch markets closed to
    688
    their cattle. The hon. Gentleman must always be aware that the whole body of his Colleagues from Ireland do not entirely agree with him on this matter, and that Questions have been put to the Chief Secretary from time to time rather condemning the action of the Government as being too severe. Of course, it is impossible, in the endeavour to stamp out the disease, to prevent considerable individual injury being done. The hon. Gentleman will bear me out when I say that in order to stamp out a disease in a country we must in every district declared to be infected enforce the most stringent regulations. These steps the Government intend to take. I may mention there has been a great decrease during the past 12 months in the number of cases of pleuro-pneumonia. I am not quite sure that I can at this moment lay my hand upon the actual number of cases; but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the decrease is very marked indeed. In 1885 the number of outbreaks was 389, and animals attacked 1,246; in 1886 the outbreaks numbered 138, and the animals attacked 1,050. Since then very stringent measures have been taken, especially in the district surrounding Dublin, and the slaughter of animals may be said to have been wholesale. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every precaution has been taken and will be taken to stamp out the disease.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: Let me explain to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that I quite agree with those who say that large districts should not be unnecessarily proclaimed. What I wish to suggest as a remedy is that the power of slaughter resting with the Veterinary Department should be exercised in the wholesale manner he speaks of. The disease should be stamped out, no matter what the cost; thousands of pounds may be lost by compulsory slaughter, but I am persuaded that in the long run many more thousands will be saved.
    MR. BIGGAR: I desire to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to a matter the consideration of which will not occupy more than a very few minutes. At the same time, it is one of considerable importance to a large class of people. It is with regard to the controversies which take place around the whole Coast of Ireland between the persons who are entitled by

    689
    Charter to the fishings in the rivers, and the fishermen outside who have a right to fish in the open sea. I brought this matter before the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor in Office, and he promised to appeal to the Fishery Inspectors to have the matter investigated in the different parts of Ireland. According to the old theory, the Fishery Inspectors were not allowed to interfere or to take any part in the controversies with regard to boundaries between the claimants to the different fisheries; but the Predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did undertake to have an inquiry made with regard to the fisheries in a particular part of Ireland—in the neighbourhood of Fort Stewart. I am informed that a very great deal of conflict takes place on the different parts of the coast; and what I ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to do, and what I think is perfectly reasonable, is to instruct the Fishery Inspectors to inquire into the controversies which take place, and to make a Report to the Government, with the intention of having a copy of that Report, or whatever part of it the Government think desirable to make public, laid before Parliament in the next Session. I think that what I ask is so thoroughly reasonable that the Government will raise no objection to my request. At present, each party considers itself aggrieved, and I have not the slightest doubt that each party—I mean those who have Charter rights and those who have Common Law rights—opposes the other, and that each party is also naturally disposed to complain that the other encroaches even where, in point of fact, there is no encroachment at all. Under these circumstances, I think it would be a beneficial occupation for the Inspectors, during the Recess, to make a Report in respect to the rights of the different parties, and then, if the Government think fit, I will move for a copy of the whole or whatever part of the Report the Government may choose to make public.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid the Fishery Inspectors have not power to decide questions of law and right.
    MR. BIGGAR: I only ask that they shall report.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If they reported, it is very possible it would get them into trouble. It would not conduce to peace; and the question would still be left as it is now—namely, to be settled by the Courts of Law. I do not think anything can be done, unless by legislation we transfer the functions of a Court of Law to the Fishery Inspectors. That would be a great step; and I do not think the Inspectors are a body in whom should be vested the functions of a Court of Law.
    MR. BIGGAR: I do not ask that the Fishery Inspectors should publish their Report, but that they should report to the Government, and that then the Government should use their own discretion as to whether or not they will allow the whole or any part of the Report to be published. I do not ask that these gentlemen should hold a public Court of Inquiry and give a public decision. I wish them to make private recommendations to the Government, and then, if the Government think fit, they can afterwards found legislation on the Report of their own officials,
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no objection to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests, now that he has fully explained his object.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 55: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 439.) [3.40 P.M.]
    (2.) £1,145, to complete the sum for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    " That a sum, not exceeding £104,809, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."
    MR. CAREW: Upon this Vote I desire to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the working of the Labourers' Acts in Ireland, the responsibility for which rests with the Local Government Board. From the Return which was granted upon the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet) I find that the total amount

    691
    expended in the erection of cottages up to the 31st of March of this year is £153,000, and that the expenses in connection with that expenditure amount to no less than £55,026. This certainly appears to be monstrously disproportionate. It must be recollected that the Acts were passed as beneficent Acts, and passed in the interest and for the benefit of the labourers, and for no one else; and to find that a sum equal to more than one-third of the actual amount spent in the erection of cottages should have found its way into the pockets of solicitors and other professional gentlemen—in other words, devoted to a purpose which was never intended by the Act—is perfectly monstrous. Of the sum of £55,026, no less than £8,600 18 s. has gone in the expenses of the Local Government Board. Now, this sum will have to come out of the local rates. Notwithstanding that all this expense has been incurred, only £1,633 cottages have been erected; and let me point out that though the sum of £100 5s. 9d. has been paid to the Local Government Board in respect of the cottages in Naas, not a single cottage has been erected there. I wish to move the reduction of this Vote, unless the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who is also the President of the Irish Local Government Board, gives me an assurance that these enormous expenses will be greatly contracted. At present there is a most ridiculous system of red tapeism at work in the Office of the Local Government Board. As a matter of fact, the Boards of Guardians are in the hands of the Local Government Board. Scheme after scheme has been approved of by Guardians and sent up; representations have been made; but the Local Government Board, in consequence of their supineness and inactivity, do not send Inspectors to report on the schemes. Only the other day I received a letter from a constituent complaining that though three separate resolutions were sent by the Celbridge Board of Guardians to the Local Government Board, that Board had not the courtesy to give the Guardians an answer. In another division of the same Union—though a representation was made upwards of 20 months ago — 16 months were allowed to lapse before an Inspector was sent down, and nearly five months have elapsed and no report
    692
    has been made. This is scandalous. We have the melancholy spectacle of labourers in Ireland clamouring at the doors of Boards of Guardians, who in turn send up schemes to the Local Government Board, asking for cottages to be built, and they receive no reply. I hope the Chief Secretary will give us his assurance that this state of things shall cease.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Kildare (Mr. Carew) has complained of the cost of carrying out the Labourers Cottages Act. It is a matter of great regret that the working of any Act of Parliament should be either costly or take a long time. I think he will see that in this case both the cost and outlay are inherent in the nature of the Act itself. It is necessary under the Act that careful examination should be made by the Local Government Board into every scheme. A great deal of the outlay has been due to the fact that in many instances the rural Sanitary Authority, the Local Authority under the Act, have not supplied the Local Government Board with all the information absolutely necessary in order that they may pronounce an opinion. A very large number of schemes have been presented to the Local Government Board, and a great strain has thereby boon put on the Department. On the whole, I am disposed to think that what the officials have done is highly creditable to them. I believe that at this moment the work is very little in arrear, that it has been overtaken, and that there will be no delay in future, except such as is absolutely necessary from the fact that information is not supplied by Local Authorities. I regret I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a pledge that the expenses of working the Act will be largely diminished; but I can assure him that no effort will be spared to cut down the cost wherever it is possible to do so.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I should like to call attention to the excessive number of workhouses in Ireland. This is a question which has attracted a great deal of notice in Ireland, and especially in Ulster. It was brought before the House so long ago as 1877, when Mr. Macartney, then Member for Tyrone, moved a Resolution upon the subject, which had the support then of my right hon. and gallant Friend

    693
    the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman). The terms of the Motion of Mr. Macartney were not exactly the terms of the Motion I have upon the Paper of the House. The Predecessor of the present Chief Secretary—namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) — objected to the terms of the Motion of Mr. Macartney, though he eventually agreed to appoint a Commission to inquire into the amalgamation of workhouses which he did not object to, and which he thought was a matter worthy of inquiry. A Commission was appointed, and a great deal of information was obtained on the subject. At that time in Ireland opinion on this question had not advanced so far as it has at the present time. I should like to state shortly what was the result of the inquiry by the Commission; 104 Unions negatived the question of amalgamation, 11 gave an answer in the affirmative, and 23 Unions proposed the dissolution of other Unions. In one paragraph of the Report of the Commission it was said that there existed among a considerable number of ratepayers and Boards of Guardians a strong feeling that amalgamation would be attended with advantage. That feeling has grown very considerably in Ireland, and I speak with great confidence as to its growth in the North. There is a very strong feeling that the accommodation provided in the workhouses is excessive, and that the accommodation might be reduced with great benefit to the ratepayers. Let me call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to a short statement of the decrease in the number of inmates of workhouses since 1851 taken from the Report of the Commission. In 1851 the number of inmates in the Irish workhouses was 250,000; in 1887 that number had fallen to 53,000; in 1881 the average number of inmates was 43,632. Now, there is accommodation in the Irish workhouses for 100,000 persons, roughly speaking, in excess of the average number of inmates. The excess of accommodation is distributed as follows:—26,695 in the Province of Ulster, 31,595 in the Province of Minister, 25,510 in the Province of Leinster, and 17,686 in the Province of Connaught. The Commissioners in their Report came to the conclusion, from evi-
    694
    dence they deemed to be satisfactory, that the estimated accommodation was too high by 45 or 50 per cent. Even taking that estimate, which I think to be too low, of the Commissioners, I hold that there is considerable ground for inquiry at the present moment, and that if we could reduce the accommodation even to the extent the Commissioners thought to be necessary, very considerable relief would be given to the ratepayers. The Commissioners reported adversely to the terms of the Motion then brought before the House; but what I desire to impress on the Chief Secretary is, that since the day on which, the question of the amalgamation of the workhouses was brought before the House, there has been a very great growth of opinion in Ireland, at all events in the North of Ireland, upon this question, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter. I cannot hardly expect him to pledge himself, or to give me a definite answer now; but I hope he will see his way, at any rate next Session, to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into this matter. I believe it would be very advantageous if the inquiry were not confined solely to the question of amalgamation of workhouses, there are many other questions which might, with great advantage to the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland, be referred to a Select Committee of this House.
    MR. CLANCY: With reference to the question of the erection of labourers' cottages in Ireland, I should like to mention one or two facts in support of my hon. Friend's (Mr. Carew's) contention, and in opposition to the contention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman states, that some of the delay and some of the cost are necessarily inherent in the Acts themselves. Certain proceedings preliminary to the erection of cottages are necessary, and certain expenses, of course, are incidental to those proceedings; but we have from time to time given specific instances in which the responsibility for the delay has rested upon the Local Government Board. Take the case of the Celbridge Union. The period which intervened between the application for the erection of cottages and the date at which the Local Government Board sent down their In-

    695
    spector was no less than 16 months, and a period of five months has elapsed since the Inspector was sent down without any answer having been given on the subject by the Local Government Board, If that is so, what is the use of telling us in general terms that the delay is altogether due to or inherent in the working of the Act? The delay in the case of the Celbridge Union clearly lies with the Local Government Board, and with their mode of managing matters. I am personally acquainted with a case in my own county, in reference to which I addressed a Question to the Chief Secretary some time ago. I pointed out that several cottages applied for in various parts of the South Dublin Union nearly two years ago are still in the process of incubation in the mind of the Local Government Board. The answer made was that the Guardians were to blame. Well, since I asked the Question on the subject the Guardians of the Union, who, as the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) knows perfectly well, belong, the majority of them, to his own political Party, have unanimously repudiated the allegations made on behalf of the Local Government Board in this House. I re-assert that the allegations are totally unfounded, and that the delay which has occurred is a delay which, for the greater part, lies with the system of red tape which seems to be inherent in every part of the Dublin Castle system. What reply is to be made to this specific instance? A general statement that these delays are not due to any action on the part of the Government Department will not do. He must give us specific answers to specific allegations made in this House, or else he must run the risk of being regarded in Ireland as merely the mouthpiece for false statements furnished to him by his subordinates in Dublin Castle. This is no new thing. We are accustomed to it year after year, and it appears to be of no use for us to make a protest in the matter. I never make a protest now in this House in the hope that it will be attended to. The more reason there is for making a protest the less hope or expectation I have that any good will result from it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is part of the despotic Government set up in Ireland, and I acknowledge his present policy
    696
    is quite in his line. He is quite right, from his point of view, in carrying out the principles upon which that despotism is founded; he cannot do aught to discredit his agents in Ireland. His agents in Ireland are appointed for a particular purpose, and that purpose is not at all to further the interests of the Irish people or to expedite the business of the country. Their work is to conduct Public Business in their own fashion, whether it pleases the people or not; and neither the Chief Secretary nor any other Member of the Government will ever dare in this House to get up and do anything which by any possibility will cast discredit upon any of his agents in Ireland. The real reason why I make this protest is that it may have some effect upon public opinion in England if it is seen how Business is managed in Ireland. We have already succeeded, to some extent, in attracting the attention of the English public to this matter; and we will continue in the process, in the hope that it will result in good to our country.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) knows, of course, that it is impossible to go into the minutiœ of every case in which application is made for the erection of labourers' cottages. I think that what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) stated carries with it the conviction that the case is not really a bad one. Only three cases have been mentioned as still pending, and the fact that there are only those three cases shows that the arrears are being wiped off. I understand that the arrears have been overtaken, and that practically the schemes in most of the Unions are in a forward state. I am convinced, from what I have seen, that the Local Government Board are anxious to meet the views of the Guardians in every respect.
    MR. CLANCY: They have not yet sanctioned the scheme for the South Dublin Union.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: As I have said, I cannot go into the minutiœ of every case.
    MR. CLANCY: You have had ample notice in this case.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I did not know it would be mentioned to-day, otherwise I would have made inquiries
    MR. CLANCY: I will bring the matter up again on Report.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: And then I will give all the information I can on the subject. I assure the hon. Gentleman and those who act with him in this matter that I have taken very considerable interest in the working of the Labourers' Cottages Act, and I have not been content in many cases with the simple Reports; but I have made inquiries to ascertain whether the delays have been the result of official neglect. There is no matter in which we ought to be more careful than upon the question of the erection of labourers' cottages, knowing what a great disappointment it must be to the labourers to find the realization of their hopes being postponed. Now, with regard to the question of the amalgamation of Unions, which was raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Macartney), let me say that I am well aware of what took place in 1877. My hon. Friend asks for the appointment of a Select Committee. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the appointment of a Select Committee would not be a very effectual way of doing work of this kind. It would be impossible for a Select Committee of this House to determine the cases of all the Unions in Ireland in a satisfactory way. If it comes to be a matter of the appointment of a Commission it will be found that is a very serious and costly process. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will take this matter into his consideration, and the Vice President of the Local Government Board is at present collecting as much information on the subject through his own Inspectors and other officials as he can, and will take whatever steps for the amalgamation of the Unions as are considered necessary.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise for the purpose of making a suggestion to the Government, and that is that they should postpone this Vote until to-morrow, so that the rest of the Votes in this Class may be taken at this Sitting, and the work of Supply in this way expedited. It is perfectly true that experience teaches me that the Local Government Board Inspectors in Ireland have considerable sympathy for the working of the Labourers' Act, but that their action as well as that of the Local Government Board is very slow, and I have not always been able to understand the delay. As far as the action of the Inspectors is personally concerned,
    698
    during the small experience I have had of the working of the Act, I have found that Inspectors giving evidence before the Privy Council have always exhibited sympathy with the working of the Act, and that they are really and truly anxious to promote the interests of the labourers. I must say that every effort is made by the Privy Council to intimidate these men, and that they are treated sometimes by Members of the Privy Council with as much discourtesy as the elevated position of the Privy Councillors allows them to indulge in. They are attacked by innuendoes, and statements are sometimes made that they are leaning to the popular side, which none of them do, I have heard them practically chastised and reproved before the entire body of the Privy Council, and before many landlords and agents. It is such action which has stopped the building of labourers' cottages. Except so far as delay goes, I would not sympathize with any attacks made upon the Local Government Board Inspectors. There is just one other important question I should like to refer to. Reference has been made to the condition of affairs in the New Ross Union, and I should like to know what the Government intend to do respecting that Union? Is it not a fact that something like a truce has been proclaimed between the contending parties? I know but little as to what the exact facts are in the locality, but I am of opinion that something like an accommodation has been broached in the district. That being so, I do not see why the Government should not put the New Ross Union into the hands of representatives of the ratepayers. I advise the Government, in the interests of peace and order, not to dislocate local government further by keeping open the sore. A great deal of Boycotting has been carried on in order to carry out the strike, with which I have had the fullest sympathy in the interest of public liberty, against the payment of rates in consequence of the very unjust and unwarrantable suppression of the New Ross Board. I do not know exactly why, but something like a settlement seems to be possible. I should like to know what objection there can be to reinstating the old Board.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand the hon. Gentleman has made a suggestion with the object of promoting Public

    699
    Business to-night. That being so, I shall be glad to accede to his request, if he is of opinion that we shall really make material progress this evening with the less important Votes. I shall be glad to ask that this Vote be postponed till to-morrow. Of course, I should like it to be disposed of tomorrow; but I do not wish to press for a formal understanding.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: All the Members on these Benches are agreed.
    MR. BIGGAR: No, no !
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) will excuse me from answering now the question he has put to me. It will probably raise a good deal of discussion, and it had better be raised tomorrow. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    (3.) £3,456, to complete the sum for the Record Office, Ireland.
    (4.) £9,126, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Ireland.
    MR. FLYNN: Before we pass this Vote, but without any intention of delaying the Committee unnecessarily, I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the manner in which the Registrar General prepares the statistics of agricultural produce, and of the prices thereof. It is of the highest possible importance that the Commissioners who have under the new Land Act to revise judicial rents should have the assistance of accurate and carefully compiled tables of the prices of produce when they come to discharge their duties. Now, I maintain that the Registrar General does not prepare these tables at all in a proper manner. The prices of all the leading articles of agricultural produce, such as oats, barley, wheat, butter, cattle, &c, are quoted in the Registrar General's Report most erroneously, and, in the majority of cases, much higher than the average market prices in Ireland. Instead of basing his Report of the prices of agricultural produce on figures sent up to him from various parts of the country, the Registrar General bases his Report exclusively upon the prices in the Dublin City markets, which are on the average 20 percent, 15 per cent, and, at the lowest computation, 10 per cent higher than those in the Provincial towns.
    700
    It has been, also, thought that the Registrar General takes the retail prices quoted in the Dublin markets. That, we hold, is a most erroneous and unscientific way of preparing tables which are of such importance to the agricultural community, especially at the present moment. I do not desire to go in detail into the matter. If I had been aware that this Vote would have come on, to-day, I would have been in a position to give a large amount of information to the Committee, and to have laid many facts before the Government to lead them to adopt my view. All I ask is that they will inquire into the matter, and ascertain from what source the Registrar General derives his information and in what way he makes up his tables?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I entirely agree- with the view of the hon. Gentleman that the question of correct tables of the prices of agricultural produce is one worthy of great consideration, and we have already sanctioned the expenditure of a certain sum of money to aid the Commissioners in what they have to undertake in regard to the revision of judicial routs. In view of recent legislation accurate Returns are most necessary, and the preparation of these tables, I know, has received considerable attention at the hands of the Registrar General, who takes great interest in the work. I shall be glad to inquire what steps can be taken to insure the supply of the most accurate information.
    MR. BIGGAR: I hold very strongly to the opinion that the prices in leading markets are, after all, the best tests. I sometimes look for the quotations of different minor markets; but, after all, nothing gives a person engaged in a particular business so good an idea of the real state of the market as the quotations of the leading markets. Take the article of butter, for instance. The quotations of the Cork Butter Market afford a much better test than those which appear in local newspapers regarding similar markets. The person who supplies the local newspaper with the quotations is, as a rule, a person interested in the matter, and he gives quotations which are not so much real quotations as quotations which he desires to see. Therefore it is that I entertain a strong idea that we ought to be influenced as much, as possible by the

    701
    prices of the leading markets. It must be borne in mind that with regard to a great many articles the quotations only relate to retail transactions; of course, in a retail market a farmer naturally gets a higher price than he gets in a wholesale market. Under these circumstances, I think the right hon. Gentle man will do well to consider whether or not it would be better to confine his attention upon this question to the leading markets.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think there is a very wide difference of opinion between the hon. Gentleman and myself.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: There is this method I would recommend—the practice which prevails in Scotland in their Fiars' Courts there, the decisions of which are admitted by everyone all over the country to be impartial. I would suggest, if the Registrars General are in any way to affect judicial rents, that something of an analogy should be followed —that he should ascertain what is the practice in these Fiars' Courts in Scotland, which practically decide what the Ministers' Money is to be. That being-decided as the agricultural values, there must be some means of striking an average between the central markets in Edinburgh and the local markets. I do not profess to know what the result in Scotland is; but I know the practice is generally satisfactory to the people of Scotland. It is practically a decision as to prices which rules, to a great extent, all over the country; and if the Registrar General could ascertain what the practice there is, I think considerable interest would in future attach to his statistics, in view of the fact that judicial rents are to be varied in future on prices.
    MR. DEASY: This is a subject on which. I wish to say a few words. I agree entirely with the observations which have fallen from the hon. Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn) as to this objectionable and utterly misleading method of compiling agricultural statistics. I maintain that not only ought the Registrar General to have regard to the average prices throughout the year, but he ought also to have regard to the quantity of agricultural produce which is sold at a particular period of the year. What occurs in Ireland is this. Nine-tenths of the farmers send their oats and
    702
    barley and wheat before Christmas to market. The consequence is, that at later periods of the year—at the end of the year the price of oats, which at an early period of the year might be only 4s. a cwt., is, owing to the scarcity of oats, quoted at 8s. and 8s. 6d. a cwt. What do we find from the Return of the Registrar General? It is this—that the average price of barley, of wheat, and of oats in Ireland is the price of the principal markets of the country. Take the months of May and June, whatever quantity of these cereals happen to be in the market is in the hands of large merchants. This is an utterly fallacious and improper method of compiling these Reports. And the same thing applies to butter. But as to cereals, last year when the question of the prosperity of Ireland and other matters were under consideration, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, talking about the average price of oats, told us that the average price of oats was about 9½d. or 9¾d. the pound. It was that price for one month in the year, but that was the month in the year when no farmer in Ireland has a single pound to sell. As I said, the same thing occurs in regard to butter. The price of butter in Cork Market, it was stated the other night, was enormously high. What is the reason of that comparatively high price of butter in Cork Market? It is, that the right hon. Gentleman did not quote the average price of Cork Market for the season during which farmers sent in a quantity of butter. He quoted the highest price of butter during the last three months, when the price was inordinately high. I maintain that when agricultural prices are quoted in this House regard ought to be had to the quantity of the particular article which is sold, and also that regard ought to be had to the quantity which is sold at the highest price, and also to the quantity which is sold at the lowest price. It is contrary to what ought to be done by gentlemen occupying a high position that they should come here and take from newspapers the highest price they can find quoted. I have already stated that it is the practice of Irish farmers to sell the greater part of their cereal crops immediately after harvest, and that in the spring and the early part of the summer they do not have anything in their barns to sell. Everyone knows

    703
    that a low price of agricultural produce prevails in Ireland now, Wheat is now so low that it does not pay farmers to grow it. They grow barley very largely instead, and they also grow a very large quantity of oats. Everyone knows what the harvest turned out in Ireland last year. Not one farmer in 20 was able to get the top price for his barley, and not one in 20 got but the lowest price for his oats. What do I find quoted here from Thom's Almanac? The price of wheat was 10 s. per cwt. All I can say is this. I know hundreds of farmers in the South of Ireland, some personal friends of my own, who were very glad to get 5s. per cwt. for their wheat, and I do not know a farmer who got this top price for his wheat. In some cases it was black and discoloured owing to the moisture of the weather. But I come to a more glaring case. The price of oats is returned at 8s. a cwt. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there was no such price in Ireland. He knows the average price was not more than 3s. He knows more than that. Many farmers were obliged to bring their oats back again because no one would buy them off them. To give you an idea of the state of the harvest in Ireland last summer, it is a matter of common notoriety, having appeared in the newspapers, that in hundreds and thousands of cases farmers carried their oats into the market and could not sell them. The average sack of oats weigh two cwt. in a good year. Last year it did not weigh half a cwt. It was nearly all chaff, and the result was the poor men had to carry it home again and give it to their cattle. The price of oats then is over-stated almost three-fourths, because I maintain that if you take the average weight given for the greater quantity of that sold last year it would not exceed 3s. or 3s. 6d. per cwt. instead of the enormous price of 8s. the cwt. I recollect 15 years ago getting 8s. or 9s. for the best oats in the South of Ireland. Last year I saw them sold for 4s. 3d. I know many more experienced farmers than I am who are unable to get a better price in the Province of Munster. What do oats make in the mountainous districts? Many farmers were obliged to turn their cattle into it and let them eat the straw. In a great many other cases it did not pay for the trouble of threshing it out. I know some cases
    704
    where the men were obliged to rake the crop up. Then, coming to barley, we are told that the Irish farmers ought to turn their attention to barley more than they do—that they ought to grow it instead of oats and wheat. And it is pointed out as an argument for this advice that an enormous quantity of malt and an enormous quantity of barley are imported into Ireland from foreign countries for the purpose of growing and distilling. Barley was grown to a large extent in Ireland last year; but I do not think it will be grown to anything like the same extent again, because it is one of the most risky crops that can be grown. Unless the weather is favourable, and unless the soil is good, it is a losing game to grow barley at all. As a matter of fact, at the Bandon distillery and other distilleries in the South of Ireland, where an enormous quantity of barley is purchased year after year, I am aware of this—and I can give the right hon. Gentleman figures and facts which will place my statement beyond dispute—the average price of barley was not a quarter of what it was in the years previous to last year or the year before. Take my own case. I recollect having sold barley a few years ago at £1 per barrel. Last year I had to sell it at 12 s. Barley per cwt. was 8s. last year—that is, 16 s. per barrel. If the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to write to a gentleman who was up to a short time ago a Member of this House—he sat for the borough of Bandon, and he was one of the greatest distillers in the South of Ireland—or if he will take the trouble to communicate with Mr. Shaw, another gentleman who occupied a prominent position in this House a short time ago, and who is connected with a prominent distillery— he will find the average price of barley was not 4s. last year. And, as a matter of fact, the Bandon distillery bought barley at very much less than 4s. a cwt. The farmers were obliged to give it to their cattle. It was absolutely unsaleable. Here we have the highest price given by Guiness's for the best barley last year quoted in Thom's Almanac. If I was to quote the average price of barley throughout the country I would not say 2s. 6d. a cwt., because it has been given to the cattle for want of buyers. Such a Return as this is not satisfactory. The system which pre-

    705
    vails is one that should be abolished, particularly in the face of the facts stated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cork. The significance of this Return is much greater than it has been before. The other day we had, contrary to the express wishes of the National Party from Ireland, and contrary to the wishes of the great majority of the Liberal Members of this House, a clause embodied in an important Act of Parliament which directs the Land Commissioners in making reductions on the judicial rents in Ireland—and this will affect at least 200,000, or a third of the tenantry of Ireland—we have these men directed by the House of Commons in these circumstances, that in the reduction of the rents fixed between 1881 and last year they shall have regard to prices, and prices alone. Where will they get their prices? Will they come to me as a tenant farmer to give them an idea of what I have been realizing as a tenant farmer? It is said we only make these statements for our own benefit. I do not care a pinch, so far as I am concerned, what is said by landlords; but I do say this—that if they want to get at the real and true figures which have been given for agricultural produce for the last two or three years—for the last four or five years—since the passing of the Land Act of 1881, they will have to cast aside altogether the official Returns for these years — they will have to commence afresh. They must go down to the South of Ireland—to the corn market in Cork—to the butter market there, which is the greatest market for butter in the world I understand; and they must ascertain, what I have already stated, the amount of butter sold, the particular period of the year, and the particular prices. They must base their calculations on what was sold at a particular month and at a particular price, and compare it with the quantity sold at another period, and the price obtained. The market virtually closes in the month of November or December, when butter is, perhaps, at 130 s. or 140 s. per cwt., whereas nine-tenths of the farmers of the country have disposed of all their butter by the month of August. And in such a year as this—a dry and parched year—I do not believe that in the mountainous districts the average farmer, who keeps only a few cows, will
    706
    make a single firkin of butter after the month of July. He might be able to go into the local markets, and sell a few pounds of butter occasionally; but I say this system, which is carried on in a manner contrary to that which I have indicated, and which I think is the true method of arriving at a proper conclusion, can have nothing but a disastrous effect on the future of the tenant farmers of the country. I would, therefore, suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the important nature of this Return now, and in view of the tremendous issues which I suggest are involved in a proper and a satisfactory Return, such as will not mislead the Land Commissioners—I would impress on the Government the desirability of taking this question into their best consideration. Now, Sir, to go a little further, I find potatoes quoted at 60 s. per ton. I was up in Lincolnshire a couple of months ago, at the end of this season, and potatoes were much higher than during any season of the year. I was there about the 1st of June or the end of May, and I ascertained that at that season of the year great waste had taken place, and the farmers were glad to soil their potatoes in the London Market for 40 s. or 45 s. per ton. In Ireland I have no hesitation in saying the average price of potatoes—that the great bulk of potatoes were sold in the Irish markets at an average price of not more than 35 s. per ton; and most of the Irish farmers last September would have been glad to get 35 s. or 40 s. a ton. Turnips are returned at 20 s. a ton. Well, that is a matter on which I do not think I need trouble the Committee. Now, this is the last item which I shall press on the attention of the Government. Hay is returned at 45 s. a ton. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the average price of hay is 45 s. a a ton when the crop was a very large one? I have bought hay within the past three months in the present harvest, and had it delivered 10 miles to me, and passed through the Cork Market at £1 per ton. The last winter I sold an enormous quantity of hay— and perhaps I sell more hay than any farmer in the County Cork—and the average price I got in the Cork Market, for the very best hay, well saved, was from 32 s. to 35 s. a ton. I should have

    707
    been glad to sell 100 or 200 tons of hay-last September for 35 s. a ton, if I could have got anyone to do business with me; but I could not get anyone. Yet here, in this Return, we have it quoted at 45 s. a ton. What kind of rents can be fixed by the Land Commissioners when they come to consider these prices in relation to the prices of the present year? I suppose the prices for the present year will be put down at the same rate, perhaps more. But I do say that this is one of the most serious things which we could take into our consideration. I say that I speak upon this question with more authority than almost any hon. Member on these Benches; and I say to the right hon. Gentleman, if he has been devoting any of his time to Ireland, from contact with the farmers of his own district and with his own tenants, he must be aware that the facts I have stated cannot be controverted. Under these circumstances, I would again reiterate my hope that the right hon. Gentleman who has undertaken the government of Ireland will investigate the points I have raised, and before any serious steps are taken for the revision of judicial rents that they will take care that a true average is to be ascertained with regard to agricultural prices.
    MR. FLYNN: This question has been too often passed by, receiving but little attention, and I am glad that attention has been arrested by it on the present occasion in view of the interest taken on these Benches on the subject. My hon. Friend who has just sat down has given a clear and convincing case for thoroughly overhauling this Department. The figures on which they have based their conclusions are thoroughly misleading, and have undoubtedly acted adversely to the interest of the tenant farmers of Ireland. I would like, in connection, with this very important subject, to point to one matter which it is possible has escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Ministers, and others connected with the administration of Irish affairs. The question of the price of butter has much to do with the question of rent paid, especially in the South of Ireland. To all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are interested, and who, I hope, will be prepared to carry out the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy), I would like to point to the evidence given before
    708
    the Royal Commission by Mr. Clausby, of Cork, on this very question of butter, because we find the price of butter quoted in Thom's Almanac, which is the official authority, and the price of butter quoted by Ministers in this House in reply to the arguments which were advanced on the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) last September were utterly misleading, and as wrong as it was possible for them to be. In many cases they were 40 and 50, and in some cases 60 percent above the price of the article in question. Mr. Clausby's method of arriving at the price of butter was this. He took the quantities delivered in the Cork markets month by month; he took the average monthly price of the various qualities, taking the mean price in each month; and, contrasting the one with the other, he took the price per pound of the quantities delivered throughout the entire year. We do not say that that can be done in regard to all commodities; but, with regard to the great staple commodity of butter, the price in the Cork Market rules the price of butter not only in Ireland, but also in Great Britain very largely. What I have suggested can be done where there are well-kept markets. Of this the right hon. Gentleman may be perfectly assured—that if the Registrar General receives explicit directions from the Government to compile these important statistics in the manner we have indicated, he will receive every possible assistance from the officials and secretaries of the local markets all over Ireland, who are all interested in arriving at a fair idea of the average price prevailing in regard to all agricultural produce. But, Sir, it does require an explicit direction from the Government to the Registrar General that this should be carried out, because there are other influences at work. There are influences at work in Ireland which find expression in this House and elsewhere, which would prevent this from being done; and if we do not get some distinct guarantee from the Government—if we do not get something definite from the Government this evening on this Vote in reference to the Registrar General's future action—no good will come of this discussion. These points will have to be raised all over again, and, in the meantime, a great injustice will have been done to the tenant farmers of Ireland.

    709
    The Rules of Debate, Mr. Courtney, will prevent me from going into the question of judicial rents; but I have my opinion as to the hardship of judicial rents, and the complaints made as to the unjust scale on which these rents are fixed, and this to a large extent by the Sub-Commissioners going on Returns prepared, by the Registrar General, and not upon the circumstances of the locality. Hence you had two sets of facts. You had the Sub-Commissioners going round to administer what was intended to be a beneficent Act of the Legislature, believing that they were doing their duty conscientiously between landlord and tenant in arriving at a fair value of the land. At the same time, they were totally in error. And you have the tenant farmers —who, together with their advocates, are unable, on account of having such an authority an this, to make representations to the Commissioners—suffering this injustice, and grumbling at what they believe to be an unjust scale fixed. I believe that unjust scale was arrived at on account of the defects in the work of the Registrar General. I have no desire to be captious on this Vote, and to throw blame on the Registrar General and his office; but it is the system on which they have gone that I blame. That system is notorious. It has been pointed out in the leading paper in Dublin— The Freeman's Journal—the injustice of this system has been pointed out on more than one occasion. Attention has also been called to it by experts in agriculture who have written from time to time in agricultural journals; and still the Registrar General has gone on the same system which, as has been proved conclusively here this afternoon, is utterly misleading and unjust. I feel grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for the undertaking he gave us to look into the matter; but I would feel additional gratitude, and I think this debate would be productive of some real ultimate benefit, if he could, on behalf of the Government, give us some assurance that he would issue some explicit directions to the Registrar General to frame these tables upon the data which we have suggested, and upon a system very different from that which at present prevails in his office.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I think we ought to have some reply from the Chief
    710
    Secretary for Ireland to the able and damaging speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy), who has made a speech of great power and of great force which cannot be disregarded. By the proposal of this Vote we are asked to undertake a further expense as to the collection of these statistics, and it is upon the accuracy or otherwise of these statistics that the fate of hundreds and thousands of Irish farmers will depend for the next three years. If judicial rents are to be fixed on rates which are infinitely too high— sometimes as much as three or four times higher than they ought to be according to the real average of prices— then the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), that rents in Ireland will be raised instead of lowered, will become an accomplished fact. This is too serious a question to be passed by, and I should like to know what the Parliamentary Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman) has to say upon it, for he is one of the persons who will be concerned by the overhauling of judicial rents. But he is also a Member of the Government, and he is bound, as the mouthpiece of the Government, to offer some reply to the observations of my hon. Friend; because it is perfectly clear that the system of compiling these Returns year after year goes on in a manner which makes the figures when obtained absolutely worthless. Thom's Almanac copies from the Registrar General, and, vice versâ, the Registrar General copies from Thom's Almanac. We have no knowledge of the system adopted by the Registrar General in collecting these statistics; but Thom's Almanac is made up in the interests of the landlords, and I remember that when it came to be a calculation of the number of persons on the rates for the purpose of the Redistribution of Seats Act there was an alteration made there manifestly for the purpose of securing a separate representation in Parliament for the town of Lisburn. It is all very well for the Government to say that the Sub-Commissioners would go by the Registrar General in revising the rents. But I believe the Registrar General simply makes a calculation based on the figures he finds in Thom's Almanac, and thus they work into each other's hands. The Registrar General takes

    711
    hints from Thom's Almanac, and Thom's Almanac may sometimes take hints from the Registrar General. We know the manner in which use has been made of these figures. This system of the Registrar Generalship is a humbug and imposture, and ought to be exposed; and it should be understood that the revision of rents is to be calculated on the basis of fictitious prices. That being the case, it is almost certain that, instead of receiving relief from recent legislation, the state of facts is likely to be aggravated rather than relieved by it.
    MR. BLANE: I should like to call attention to the fact that the statistics of the Registrar General are made up from the Returns collected by the police, who first take them to the agents of the landlords in the district. Now, I have known in the county of Armagh, and in some other counties as well, that the police have gathered together those statistics for the Registrar General; but before they were taken to him the figures have been supervised by the local agents of the landlords, who were on the Commission of the Peace, for the purpose of making the Return as false as possible. That is the way in which the Constabulary make the Returns for flax and other things in the North of Ireland. The Returns I know are altogether fictitious, because, before being returned to the Registrar General, they are supervised by those local agents. It is, therefore, of no use for the Under Secretary to rise and tell us that the Returns are not compiled from these almanacs that my right hon. Friend has referred to, but from independent examination by the police in the district, because that is not so. Any man who has taken the least trouble about the matter knows that when the police have been out and have got the Returns, those Returns are supervised by the agents of the landlords in the district, who are in the Commission of the Peace and have power over the police. These agents correct the Returns before they go to the Registrar General, and, therefore, you are playing into the hands of the landlord party. How, then, can you come down to the House and say that certain statistics show that more rent can be paid? The rents can only be raised by the action of the police in working into the hands of the landlord
    712
    party. Now, I protest against any parties coming down to this House and representing the landlords and saying that these Returns are not challenged. It is of no use for the Parliamentary Under Secretary to say that these Returns are made independently by the police. I say they are not, for the police cannot make them independent of the local magistrates, and, therefore, they are not reliable; and I join with my hon. Friend in protesting against the Returns now made by the Registrar General.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): I have had a pretty good experience of Ireland and Irish affairs; but I must say that the statement of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Blane) came upon me with great surprise. If the hon. Gentleman can and will forward to us one single case of a policeman who, after collecting statistics, had taken them to a land agent or to a landlord before sending them to the Registrar General, I will pledge myself that I will take care that that case is sifted to the very bottom, and I believe that that policeman who may be proved to have so acted will find that he has done so at his peril. As to the main question, I did not intend to have risen; but I must say that I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy), and I can assure him that it shall receive the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I may point out that this Vote is reduced by £38 from what it was last year. I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that strong complaints have been made that some of the police who were to have furnished the Returns have neglected their duty and did not do it, in consequence of the fact that they had other duties to perform in connection with evictions, &c.? I notice that the Vote is less by £38 for their services than it was last year. The question of these Returns has now become one of national importance, and I wish to say that if the service is to be continued at all, money should not be spared upon it. I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury why it is that a Vote of national importance in less this year by £38 than it was last year?
    MR. A, J. BALFOUR: I understand that the reason for the reduction has nothing whatever to do with, and is in no way connected with, the efficiency of the collection of the statistics.
    MR. DEASY: While I accept the assurance of the right bon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) I should like to say that I hope the Government will endeavour to do something which will have the effect of bringing about the reconstruction of the Office in Dublin, which shall result ill giving some really valuable guidance to the Sub-Commissioners or the Land Commissioners is assessing fair rents on leaseholders.
    MR. BIGGAR: There is one question which I should like to put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) on this Vote. The salary of the Secretary in this Vote includes remuneration for Census duties. But the Census is only taken ones every 10 years. I do not see why this gentleman should have a permanent addition to his yearly salary for Census duties, and I think that, in point of fact, when the Census is taken, the Secretary gets a very large lump sum for his extra labour. Of course, this annual addition to his salary for Census duties amounts at the end of 10 years to a very substantial sum. The hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, explain that.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I believe the fact is that he used to get a bonus; but this question was raised last year, and it was then pointed out that there was an arrangement made by which he should have an extra salary for the future instead.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Nothing could be worse than to give an annual sum in connection with Census duties, because it leads to action of a mischievous kind, for the thing which ought to be done as quickly as possible is prolonged over 10 years. I remember a man engaged on this work being asked how long it would last, and he replied that "he thought, with judicious management, he could make it last to the next decennial period." The Government should consider these duties and give a lump sum to the gentlemen who have to perform them.
    MR. BIGGAR: We ought not to keep up a large permanent staff with
    714
    nothing to do. I believe that if this Office were re-arranged we should not have to pay so much in salaries. We want a thorough reorganization of the Public Departments, and it is the same with the Army and Navy.
    Vote agreed to,
    (5.) £ 12,047, to complete the sum for the Valuation and Boundary Survey, Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the Government when this survey will be finished in Ireland on a similar scale to that which I am glad to say has been completed for England?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON;: That is not in this Vote. I have an answer to give to that when the Vote comes on.
    MR. DEASY: I should like to know what the Government are doing with regard to this Boundary Commission? The Boundary Commissioners went to Cork and held an investigation there for two days, and strong evidence was given in favour of the extension of the boundaries of the city so as to include some of the villas of a great many wealthy merchants. As I understand it, the Boundary Commissioners made a Report, or a recommendation to the Government at the time, to have the wishes of the great majority of the ratepayers carried into execution. But for the last half-dozen years since that Boundary Commission went to Cork and made that recommendation nothing has been done. Now, I should like to know whether that delay has been caused by the Boundary Commissioners themselves, and, if not, who is responsible? I need hardly point out to the hon. Gentleman that this matter is one of the most vital importance to the ratepayers of the city. Those who are best able to pay for the lighting of the city and for keeping it in order take care to reside outside the boundary, and pay nothing to the municipality. The recommendations of the Commission, if not carried out now, will have to be revised in a couple of years more, and alter that next revision and inquiry we shall have another delay of half-a-dozen years, so that this century will probably see no alteration. I would ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of this what he intends doing in connection with it—whether he will make inquiries and see that

    715
    the recommendations have been made by the unanimous direction of the Commissioners; and, if so, whether he will see that these recommendations are at once carried into effect? Will he do away, once and for all, with this glaring injustice to the ratepayers of the city?
    MR. M. J, KENNY: I have called attention many times to the negligence with regard to the Report of the Boundary Commissioners, which was given as far back as 1881.
    MR. BIGGAR: It was 1879.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: The Commission was appointed in 1879, and the Report came out some time afterwards. The then Commission made some recommendations, and with them they sent plans of the different boroughs in Ireland, with suggestions for the alteration of the boundaries. Well, Sir, that Report has been before Parliament for many years, and we have repeatedly referred to it, year after year, on the Estimates; but, notwithstanding all that, nothing whatever is done. Now, Sir, I think that my hon. Friend ought not to be satisfied with a mere assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), who, of course, is bound to give an assurance of some kind to placate opposition, that he will inquire into this matter. We want to know what is to be done. There is a wealth of material as to the views of the ratepayers, and there are the recommendations of the Commissioners themselves. These recommendations have been before Parliament so long a time that the ratepayers believe their adoption will not be passed. Successive Governments have done absolutely nothing in the question. This is a question pre-eminently for the present Government. As their conscientious Predecessors have not been successful, here is a splendid chance for them to see whether they cannot be successful. So far as I can ascertain, all residents in the boroughs in Ireland are extremely anxious to see the recommendations of the Commission carried into effect at once.
    MR. MURPHY: The present Government ought not to be slow in giving legislative effect to the Report of the Commissioners. That Report deals not only with the City of Cork, but with the boundaries of all the principal towns in Ireland,
    716
    and proposes to adjust and improve the boundaries everywhere. In the City of Dublin we have a number of excrescences in the form of townships lying beyond the City, but having the benefit of all its institutions and advantages, and of all the expenditure which it has been obliged to incur. These townships ought to be in the City of Dublin. These are things which have been before the country for quite seven years; and I think the Government ought to take up the recommendations of their own Royal Commission, and give them legal form and binding effect.
    MR. JACKSON: I can only say that I will inquire into this matter. I do not know whether it is the fault of the Commissioners or not.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: It is not their fault; it is your fault.
    MR. JACKSON: Well, if it is our fault, I can only say that I will look into it. But it does not rest with the Department—it rests with the Government to assign the means of putting it right.
    MR. BIGGAR: I should like to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that four temporary valuers and surveyors have been got rid of; but, at the same time, four permanent valuers and assistant surveyors have been added to the staff at a much lower salary. I would ask what is the reason for the addition of these four assistant surveyors and valuers? I think the principal valuation and survey of Ireland took place many years ago, and it does not seem to me that there has been any occasion for an addition to the permanent staff.
    MR. JACKSON: Four supernumeraries of a high class have been dispensed with, and four of a lower class have been added.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

QUESTIONS.

  LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  COLONEL NOLANasked, Whether the Government had come to a decision as to the extension of the Allotments Bill to Ireland?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that

  717
  the matter had been very carefully considered, and after deliberating with the Irish Officers the Government had come to the conclusion that they could not extend the Bill to Ireland for reasons which he would state to-morrow. One reason was that so late a period of the Session had been reached that no time could be found for discussing the large number of Amendments that must be introduced if the Bill were to be extended to Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that the discussions that would arise upon the new clause excluding Ireland from the Bill would probably occupy as much time as would be occupied by the Amendments consequent upon its inclusion Time, in fact, might be saved by allowing the measure to extend to Ireland.
  MR. MASONasked whether the decision of the Government applied to Scotland also?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir; it does. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), he might say that the period of the Session was only one of the reasons which he would have to state to-morrow; and he hoped that when the other reasons were stated the hon. and learned Member's fear with reference to the time necessary to discuss the new clauses would not be realized.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.