Sitting of 3 March 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—London Corporation (Charges of Malversation), appointed.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1886–7); CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE, Vote 30; CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART, Vote 2.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Corporation.
PUBLIC BILL—Ordered—First Reading—Intestates' Estates ٭ [187].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  WEYMOUTH AND MELCOMBE REGIS CORPORATION BILL (by Order).
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
  DR. TANNER: Yesterday, when this Bill was brought forward for second reading, I felt it my duty to oppose it, because, on reading various provisions contained in it, I found that they were of a somewhat extraordinary character. The size of the Bill itself is bulky; it contains a great number of pages—no less than 100; and the clauses, which are very numerous, comprise many unreasonable provisions. I know that it is unusual for an hon. Member to oppose a Bill which has been brought forward by a Municipality with which he has no connection; but still, when we look into this Bill, and see the large amount of money asked for by this Municipality in order to carry out certain works; I think it is incumbent upon us, before we pass it, to examine the accounts of the Corporation, and see whether the measure is one which ought to be passed by this House. No doubt, this measure contains a great many good provisions; and, probably, if the bad ones were eliminated, the Bill would be of great benefit to the Municipality. The object of the Bill is—
  "To enable the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis to make a new Pier and new Streets and Street Improvements, to purchase the Undertakings of the Weymouth Consumers Gas Company and the Company of Proprietors of the Weymouth Water Works, and to make further provision for the Improvement and good Government of the Borough; and for other purposes."
  Now, with respect to new streets and street improvements, I have nothing whatever to say; but when I come to those provisions of the Bill which deal with the purchase of the Water Works and Gas Works, and propose to hand over those undertakings on payment of a certain sum of money to the Corporation, I think the position of this Municipality requires a little investigation. Now, Sir, the town of Weymouth, according to the Returns of the last

  1051
  Census, has a population of 13,715, and the area of the parish itself is 52 acres, although that of Melcombe Regis, which is combined with it, is 1,548. The poor rates levied in the town amounted, in 1883, to £15,758; but in 1884—and this is the last year for which I have been able to obtain a Eeturn—they amounted to £15,013, showing a considerable falling off. Then, according to these statistics, I think it is only reasonable that we should go into some of the details, and ascertain what amount of money the Corporation of Weymouth have already borrowed, and the amount which they now propose to borrow. I find, in the first place, that they have borrowed a sum of £15,000 for repairing, improving, and maintaining the harbour of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, and also £20,000 for repairing, improving, or rebuilding the outer pier or breakwater of that harbour. They do not say that that money has been repaid. It appears to have been borrowed, and a great portion of it remains, at the present moment, unpaid. By an Act passed in 1854, the Corporation were authorized to construct a pier known as the Pile Pier, and for the use of such pier to levy tolls and rates, on the security of which they borrowed £12,000. In 1859, under an Act called the Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Markets and Pier Amendment Act, the Corporation were further authorized to borrow, on the security of the pier tolls and rates, a further sum of £5,000. Subsequently they borrowed, on the security of the market tolls, a further sum of £10,000. In 1859 they were authorized to borrow, on the security of the market tolls, the sum of £1,500; and I find that they have been authorized to borrow additional sums on the security of the market tolls. They now owe the sum of £10,000 borrowed on that security for the purposes of the harbour, and on the security of the harbour tolls the sum of £21,000, of which £19,925 is still owing, making a total sum of £41,925. The Corporation then appear, with the consent of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, to have borrowed, upon the security of their Corporate estates, for various purposes, a sum of £7,000, of which sum £5,031 is still owing. In 1879, under the provisions of the Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Bridge Act,
  1052
  the Corporation built a bridge, and for that purpose they borrowed, on the security of the bridge tolls, and as a collateral security the borough fund and borough rate, the sum of £6,000, of which £4,600 is still owing. The actual debt of the Corporation at this moment is £57,556. Now, when I inquire into the position of the town and harbour of Weymouth, I find that it is an old yachting station; but that so far as commercial purposes are concerned it does not appear to have improved very much since the time of George III., who brought it into fashion from going there personally in order to enjoy the climate and the good sea-bathing to be found there. I am told that it is still resorted to as a sea-bathing place, and I do not object to any expenditure which may be incurred in street improvements, and for improving the esplanade which is absolutely essential to any locality resorted to for bathing purposes. But what is it that the Corporation of Weymouth propose to do by this Bill? They propose, now, to borrow £40,000 for the harbour, £30,000 for the new pier, £41,300 for the pile pier, £11,000 for street improvements, £10,000 for the markets, and £6,700 for general purposes, although what for they do not state—making a total for the new loan they now require of nearly £139,000. Well, Sir, there was a point yesterday which I had intended to bring before the House, but to-day I will merely advert to it, because I find, on investigation, that I happen to be wrong in my surmise. I have been under the impression that the ratepayers of the town had not been convened together in public meeting in order to give their assent to the Bill for which this application was to be made to Parliament. I find that I was wrong in that matter, and therefore I will not refer to it further. In looking through the provisions of the Bill, I find a clause, on page 12, entitled "Committees of Council." I altogether object to this clause, and should necessity arise, I will take a Division upon it, because I regard it as an extremely improper clause. The clause provides that—
  "For the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act the Council may from time to time appoint committees of their members and may define the duties of each such committee and may delegate to each such committee such of the powers and duties of the Corporation whether as a Municipal Body or as

  1053
  the Urban Sanitary Authority or otherwise as the Council think fit and the acts and proceedings of every such committee within the limits of their delegation shall be deemed the acts and proceedings of the Council and the quorum of any such committee shall be five unless the Council otherwise direct and the Council may from time to time make such regulations as they may think fit with respect to the confirmation of the proceedings of a committee or otherwise and for the guidance of a committee and the Council may from time to time remove any member of a committee and appoint in his stead another member of the Council."
  Now, Sir, this delegation of powers from one body to another is distinctly wrong, and yesterday, when I had the opportunity of meeting the very learned Gentleman who acts as your counsel, Sir, I was glad to find that this point had received favourable consideration at the hands of some of the Gentlemen who are in charge of the Bill, and which gave me reason to hope that this clause would either be materially modified or altogether withdrawn. I will pass on now to the provision in regard to the purchase of the Water Works. What is it that they propose to do? They say that—
  "The Water Company with the consent of three-fifths of the votes of the Shareholders of that Company present personally or by proxy at any meeting of that Company specially convened for the purpose may sell to the Corporation and the Corporation may purchase the Water Undertaking (including in that expression the undertaking real and personal property choses in action easements rights powers and privileges of the Water Company) for such consideration and on and subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed on between the Water Company and the Corporation."
  Now I strongly object to this clause, because I think that if the Corporation intend to purchase the undertakings of this Water Company with money which is to be borrowed, the sum should be specified and the number of years named over which it is to be spread, in order that we may know whether the Corporation are really making a bargain, or are simply purchasing a white elephant. When I look into the past history of this Water Company I do not find that it appears to have been a very successful undertaking, and therefore I think it is absolutely essential that the amount of the purchase money should be specified in the Bill. There is yet another point. How are we to know that some of the members of the Weymouth Corporation may not be Directors or share-
  1054
  holders of the Water and Gas Company, because I look upon one as practically including the other, although the Gas Works appear to have been doing very much better than the Water Works. If some of these gentlemen should happen to hold a position in both of these Boards as Directors or shareholders, they may be able to perpetrate a job and may endeavour to recoup themselves in a large sum of money by the sale of undertakings which are not worth one-half of the amount they are going to receive. I shall certainly require a full explanation upon these points; and I think that, in the first place, the sum agreed upon as the purchase money should be specified, and whether any members of the Corporation now occupy a position on the Board of Directors, or as shareholders, in either of these Companies. Clause 46 provides that—
  "From and after the transfer and subject to the provisions of this Act all the rights powers privileges and authorities of the Water Company under the Waters Acts and under any enactment for the protection of the Water Company or the Water Undertaking including the right to levy demand receive and recover any rates rents and charges which the Water Company may demand receive or take shall he by virtue of this Act transferred to and vested in the Corporation and those Acts and enactments shall be read and have effect as if the Corporation had been therein named instead of the Water Company subject nevertheless and according to the provisions of this Act and to the following exceptions and provisions (namely):—

  (1) The provisions of 'The Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845' incorporated with the Water Acts shall not apply to the Corporation:

  (2) None of the provisions of the Water Acts in any manner relating to the share or loan capital of the Water Company or to any limitation of the amount of profit to be received by them or to the constitution meetings by direction of the Water Company shall apply to the Corporation."

  Now, this clause does not specifically state what the Corporation may charge for the water. If the Water Company in the past has not been successful, the Corporation, in order to make the undertaking pay, ought to be entitled to charge more than the amount charged in the past, and it is, therefore, important that we should have some explanations on these points. I pass from the Water Works to the sanitary portion of the Bill. Clause 64 relates to notice to be given to the Corporation of

  1055
  persons suffering from infectious diseases. Before I go into this subject, I may tell the House that upon various points under this head of infectious diseases there appears to be a considerable amount of divergence of opinion among the people of Weymouth themselves and the medical officers of that town. I find, in the first place, a provision that—
  "If any such inmate be suffering from any infectious disease the occupier or the person having the charge management or control of such building (or if such occupier or person be prevented by reason of such disease then the person in charge of such inmate) shall so soon as he shall become aware of the existence in any such inmate of any such disease forthwith give notice thereof to the Medical Officer of Health at his office."
  I do not object to that, but in sub-head 2 there is a provision which I cannot help regarding as curious, at any rate. The sub-head says—
  "If such inmate be not a member of the family of such occupier or person the head of the family (resident in such building) to which such inmate belongs or if there be no such head or if such head be prevented by illness then such inmate (unless prevented by reason of such disease or of youth) shall on becoming aware of the existence in such inmate or in his own person as the case may be of such disease forthwith give notice thereof to such occupier or person."
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to go through the clauses of the Bill in this manner.
  DR. TANNER: I bow to your decision, Sir, and I will merely draw attention, if you will permit me to do so, to this one clause relating to infectious diseases. The sub-head speaks of the occupier becoming aware of the existence in an inmate of the Home, or in his own person, of an infectious disease. Now, if he becomes aware of the existence of small-pox or cholera in his own person, how can he possibly give notice of the existence of the infectious disease? The medical officer, on becoming aware that any person is suffering from an infectious disease, is required forthwith to give notice; but I do not see how it is important to require the person infected to give that notice himself. Finally, let me call the attention of the House to one provision in this Bill which strikes me as being of the most vital character. Clause 175 provides that—
  "A Judge of any Court or a Justice shall not be disqualified from acting in the execution of
  1056
  this Act by reason of his being liable to any rate or other charge thereunder or by reason of his being a member of the Council."
  That means that if the Judge or Justice happens to be in any way included in this Gas Company or Corporation he will not be disqualified from pronouncing an opinion on any of the points which may afterwards crop up. I am glad to see, however, that there is a provision in the Bill which is underlined—namely, Clause 55, that matters in difference between the Water Company and the Corporation are to be determined by arbitration.
  COLONEL HAMBRO: I cannot but think the hon. Member has taken a very unusual course in opposing the second reading of this Bill, which, as the House must be aware, is a Bill of an entirely private character. He has informed us that he knows nothing of the locality in regard to which the Bill is promoted. Indeed, he informed me himself that he had never the pleasure of being nearer to Weymouth than somewhere off the Bill of Portland. His opposition of the Bill, therefore, cannot have arisen from any desire to benefit the ratepayers of Weymouth, and I rather imagine his real object has been to stave off the discussion which the House desires to enter upon at a later period of the evening.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to attribute motives of that kind to the hon. Member.
  COLONEL HAMBRO: I am sorry that I made the remark, and I withdraw it at once. This Bill, which has been introduced by the Corporation of Weymouth, is one similar in character to those which are constantly being projected by Municipal Corporations. It is purely of a local character, and its objects have been stated by the hon. Member. Perhaps he will allow me to supplement his statement by remarking that the Bill also seeks to consolidate the Harbour Trust and the Harbour Pier Trust; to consolidate the Corporation and their Market Trust; to provide for the purchase of the existing Gas and Water Works; to make various street improvements; to provide for the erection of a new pier and the improvemement of the existing pile pier; to carry out certain improvements on the esplanade parks; to borrow money for improvements; to

  1057
  mate bye-laws and purchase lands; and to exercise various powers in regard to infectious diseases, besides granting a municipal stock, by means of which money may be borrowed at a cheaper rate than under present circumstances. If this Bill had received the slightest opposition from the ratepayers of Weymouth, I might have had something to say about it myself, and I should certainly not have been heard here to support the second reading. But the measure has not been introduced in a hurry. First of all, it was under the consideration of the Town Council, where it received the approval of an absolute majority of the Council. After that the resolution of the ratepayers was taken at a public meeting, and a motion was passed in favour of it. Not content with that a poll of the town was taken, and a very large majority of the inhabitants declared themselves to be in favour of the Bill. The Town Council again had a meeting after the Bill had been deposited, and passed a resolution by a large majority approving of the provisions it contains. Having done that, the Corporation obtained the consent of the Local Government Board, of the Treasury, of the War Office, of the Admiralty, and of the Board of Trade to the provisions of the Bill; all these consents being granted subject to certain modifications in various clauses of the Bill. This Bill is absolutely necessary, in the opinion of the ratepayers of Weymouth, for the improvement of the harbour and town. The hon. Member for Mid Cork has pointed out that the amount of money already borrowed is £57,956; but under the Local Government Act the Corporation is allowed to borrow up to two years' rateable value, which would amount to a sum of £130,000. I have no desire to detain the House with any explanation of the provisions of the Bill; but I would point out to the hon. Member for Mid Cork that Bills of this description are not Bills which are usually discussed on the second reading. If he is acquainted with the course of procedure on measures of this kind, he will know that as soon as the Bill has been read a second time it will be handed over to a Committee of this House, by whom every clause and line of the measure will be carefully gone through, and examined with the assistance of the Legal Authori-
  1058
  ties of the House. It will also be carefully investigated by the House of Lords, if it happens to be referred to that House hereafter. I can only hope that the hon. Member, when he becomes more fully acquainted with the facts, will not insist upon opposing the Bill. I may add that the Water Works to which he has referred, instead of being an unmarketable speculation, is most highly remunerative. I hope, under all the circumstances, the hon. Member will allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  MR. BIGGAR: I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down that the main objects of this Bill are of an exceedingly laudable nature; but, at the same time, I am afraid there are certain provisions in the measure which are objectionable, and that the attention of the House should be called to them, especially as the Bill is not likely to be opposed upstairs, and the provisions of it will, consequently, not be fully gone into by a Committee. I make no reference to the proposed street improvements, or the works in connection with the harbour and the pier. I assume they are of a desirable character; but I think that some of the points which have been raised by my hon. Friend are entitled to consideration from the officials whose duty it will be to watch the Bill in Committee and to strike out and modify any of the clauses of the measure which may be found to be objectionable. If I understand the provisions of the Bill aright, the Corporation is authorized to treat with the Directors and shareholders of the Water and Gas Companies; even although some of the members of the Corporation may be Directors and shareholders of those Companies themselves. I maintain that that is a provision which ought to be struck out of the Bill. It is a provision which is perfectly indefensible. If negotiations are going on with regard to the price at which these undertakings are to be purchased, I think it would be the duty of gentlemen so situated to resign their position in the Town Council, so as to allow gentlemen who have no interest whatever in the Gas and Water Companies to make an arrangement with the Corporation. I also think it would have been more regular if the Bill had stated the basis upon which the valuation of the undertakings of these two

  1059
  Companies has been made. The Bill gives DO information at all upon that point. The prices at which the works may be purchased may be double what, according to the ordinary rules of valuation, would be considered fair and reasonable. Another awkward fact is, that in the provision which relates to rating for water purposes, if the maximum of rating power be reached which the present Water Company enjoy, there is no power, in case of a deficiency, to pay such deficiency out of any other receipts. Therefore, I think it is possible that the ratepayers may hereafter be called upon to pay a much larger sum than they ought to pay. I think my hon. Friend was justified in calling the attention of the House to the defects of the Bill; and I hope the Chairman of Ways and Means, when the measure comes into Committee, will see that it is in a proper form before it is allowed to pass this House. Having said so much, I think my hon. Friend would do well not to put the House to the trouble of a Division. He has done his duty in calling attention to the subject; and I hope he will not now press his opposition further.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)— TRIAL OF PETER WHITE AND OTHERS, CHARGED WITH MOBBING AND RIOTING AT MOTHERWELL.
  MR. D. CRAWFORDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the trials at Hamilton of Peter White, Alexander Tennent, and John Clark on 26th January last, and of Timothy Ward, Andrew M'Cuskar, and James Martin on 27th January, all steel workers, on a charge of mobbing and rioting at Motherwell, on 4th October; whether, in the first trial, the jury, after a very short deliberation, found the three prisoners not guilty, and in the second trial the Procurator Fiscal, after leading evidence, withdrew the charge against all the three prisoners; whether a special defence of alibi was pleaded by Tennent, Clark, M'Cuskar, and Martin, and given effect to by the verdict of the jury; whether Ward was, at the conclusion of the other
  1060
  trial, convicted on a separate charge of assault committed at the same time and place; and, if the above circumstances are correct, whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case, and take steps for giving some redress to these five innocent men, especially the four who were acquitted on the ground of mistaken identity?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to these cases. The statements in the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of my hon. Friend's Question are substantially correct. Upon the evidence laid before the Crown Counsel it was absolutely necessary that the men referred to should be tried. There are no public funds in the hands of the Lord Advocate out of which any payment towards the costs of an accused person could be made; and as I can find no circumstances indicating anything improper in calling upon these men to stand their trial, I do not see any reason to ask for a special Vote of money in their case.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MR. JOHN REDINGTON, SUB-SHERIFF OF CO. GALWAY.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following incident at the Con-naught Winter Assizes, held at Sligo, as reported in The Freeman's Journal 23rd December 1886:—
  "Mr. John Redington, Sub-Sheriff of the County of Galway, deposed, in reply to Mr. Le Poer Trench, Q.C., 'I have been Sub-Sheriff for the past thirteen years.'
  "Will you swear that you were at Saunders' two hours before sunset?—I did not know when the sun set. I did not know there was a section in the Act of Parliament regulating evictions that an eviction could not be carried out two hours before sunset.
  "Have you frequently directed men after the legal hour?—I don't know;"
  and, what steps he proposes to take in view of the ignorance of the law confessed by this officer?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Any person feeling aggrieved by the action of the Sub-Sheriff has a legal remedy. The Government are not responsible for any neglect of duty on his

  1061
  part. If the ignorance of this Sub-Sheriff has been to the injury of any other person, proceedings can be taken against him.

  WAYS AND MEANS—COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE—RETURN OF INCOME TAX—DIVIDEND WARRANTS OF RAILWAY COMPANIES.
  MR. HALSEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have intimated to the London and North-Western, and other Railway Companies, that they
  "cannot, as heretofore, accept the statement portion of the dividend warrant as a voucher in support of a claim for the return of Income Tax, until such statement has been verified by the Secretary of the Company;"
  and, if so, what is the object of imposing upon those concerned the additional trouble caused by this change from the long-established practice?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): In reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question, I have to say that, though the words he quotes do not appear in any letter which the Inland Revenue authorities can trace, they represent fairly enough the rule which they have laid down. Originally the Railway Companies inserted in the dividend statements the names of the proprietors of the stock; and the Inland Revenue accepted these statements, in support of an application for return of Income Tax, without further verification. The Companies, however, have since 1880, no doubt to save clerical labour, been discontinuing the insertion of the proprietors' names in the dividend statements; so, to avoid these statements being made the foundation of fictitious claims for return of Income Tax by persons not the registered proprietors of the stocks, it has been found necessary, where claims for repayment are made, to require the production of a verification signed by the Secretaries of the Companies. The Companies prefer this to inserting the proprietors' names in all the statements, as they formerly did.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE VOLUNTEER FORCE—THE CAPITATION GRANT—RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RECENT COMMITTEE.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for
  1062
  War, What decision he has arrived at as regards the recommendations of the recent Committee on the Volunteer Force with regard to the increase in the capitation grant, the travelling allowance to ranges, and the premium on complete equipment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I must ask my hon. Friend, whose interest in the Volunteers is well known, to restrain his impatience for a few days more. The intentions of the Government with reference to the Volunteers and the recommendations of the Committee are explained in my Memorandum accompanying the Army Estimates, which will be circulated very shortly.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—SHIPWRECKS ON THE GLAMORGANSHIRE COAST—COASTGUARD STATION AT SOUTHERNDOWN.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, having regard to the serious loss of life from shipwrecks which have recently occurred on the Glamorganshire coast, between Porthcawl and Nash Point; the Government will provide a coastguard station at Southerndown, with a rocket apparatus, and a system of signals, by which the life-boat station at Porthcawl can be signalled when vessels are seen to be in distress?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The question of placing an additional apparatus on this part of the coast—namely, one between Porthcawl and Nash Point, is one that has received the very careful consideration of the Board of Trade on several occasions, and the Board have been advised that it is unnecessary. The question of establishing a Coastguard station at Southerndown is for the Admiralty and not for the Board of Trade; but the Board are advised that in any case Southerndown would not be a suitable place for a rocket apparatus. I am in communication with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution as to the necessity for signals being placed at Southerndown as a means of signalling to the Porthcawl life-boat,

  INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE (IRELAND)—SPEECH OF LORD ROSSMORE AT THE CAMLA ORANGE HALL, MONAGHAN.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the report in the Monaghan Northern Standard, of 12th February, of an address delivered in the Camla Orange Hall, by Lord Rossmore, in which he used the following language respecting the Eight honourable the Member for Mid Lothian:—
  "I am afraid I cannot warm to my work like the 'Grand Old Gabbler,' and talking about Mm reminds me of a thought which struck me to-day. You have all heard of the mad dog we have had in our midst lately. You know the misery his presence has caused. Well, I say if a human mad dog is loose, who wilfully and wantonly destroys thousands of people, what ought to he done with him? The man dog ought to he done away with before he infects any more ignorant people with the snapping and snarling of his Home Rule rabies, which rabies, brethren, do so much harm to mankind when bitten by them;"
  and, whether, if the report is true, the Government intend to take any action in the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECERTARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): No, Sir.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not understand the answer. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he communicated with the noble Lord and asked him if the report was correct?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I have answered the Question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will put the Question in another form.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—PRE-TRANSFER TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  MR.H. S. WRIGHTasked the Postmaster General, If he is aware that a large number of pre-transfer telegraph clerks, who were induced by "The Telegraphs Act, 1868," to enter the service of the Postmaster General, are now, after more than 20 years, only receiving, as "telegraphists," salaries varying from 33 s. to 50 s. per week; and, whether it is within his knowledge that immediately an officer of the Post Office, or the Telegraph branch of the Post Office, is officially designated a "clerk" he is at once
  1064
  entitled to the salary and privileges attaching to that title in the office at which he is located; and, if so, whether a pre-transfer clerk, who is a "clerk" to all intents and purposes in the Post Office Service, is entitled to a clerkship of the same value as that in force in the post office were he is stationed; if that is not so, what are the privileges to which the Act of 1868 entitles such pre-transfer clerks?
  THE POSTMASTER GENEEAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that of the officers formerly in the service of the Telegraph Companies and now in the service of the Post Office a large number have obtained promotion; while the remainder, though on a scale of wages not exceeding 50 s. a-week, are much better off than they were under the Companies. The officers and clerks transferred to the Post Office were, in the language of the Act transferring them, to
  "be deemed to be, to all intents and purposes, officers and clerks in the permanent Civil Service of the Crown, and to be entitled to the same but no other privileges."
  The meaning of this I conceive to be simply that, in such matters as tenure of appointment and title to pension, telegraph clerks were to be in the same position as other Civil servants, and certainly not that their salaries were to be regulated otherwise than with special reference to the duties to be discharged.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS, "HOUSE OF COMMONS."
  SIR RICHARD PAGETasked the Postmaster General, If he will be good enough to arrange, for the convenience of hon. Members, that in telegrams sent to them addressed to this House the term "House of Commons" shall be reckoned as one word, and not three, as at present?
  THE POSTMASTER GENEEAL (Mr. RAIKES): This is a matter in which I could not act without the concurrence of the Treasury; and as any alteration of the present rule would affect not only the House of Commons, but, at any rate, many Public Offices, I must take time to consider the question.
  SIR RICHARD PAGETasked, whether it would not be easy for the Department to get over the difficulty if the Speaker were formally to enter the registered address of that House?
  MR. RAIKES: I believe there would be no objection in the Department if the address of this House were registered as "Commons." At the same time, it will be for the authorities of the House to consider how far that might be generally desirable, having regard to the fact that some delay occurs in the transmission of telegrams in consequence of the additional difficulty of sorting them.
  MR. O'HEAinquired whether, if a telegram were addressed to "Parliament," it would be delivered at the House?
  MR. RAIKES: I presume that if the address of the House of Commons were registered as "Parliament," telegrams would be delivered at that address; but it is a question whether the authorities can do that without trenching on the privileges of the other House of Parliament.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—CLASSIFICA TION OF SCHOOL — KEEPING BY TEACHERS.
  MR. LEAHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a rule of the Commissioners of National Education that first class teachers may be depressed in classification should their schools not maintain a fair standard of proficiency; and, if so, whether first class candidates will be allowed to go forward for promotion upon merely giving notice of their intention?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): By a long-established rule all teachers are liable to depression in classification should their schools decline in usefulness and efficiency; and satisfactory school-keeping must be regarded as a necessary condition in allowing teachers to seek promotion in classification.

  ADMIRALTY— NAVAL LIEUTENANTS— RESIGNATION OF COMMISSIONS IN TIME OF PEACE.
  GENERAL FEASERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the applications from Lieu-
  1066
  tenants, Royal Navy, to resign their commissions have been refused, contrary to usual custom in peace time; and, if so, whether it is necessary to have recourse to the enforced service of officers in consequence of the serious incompleteness in the establishment of Lieutenants in the Royal Navy?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): It is the case that during the latter part of last year applications from lieutenants, Royal Navy, to resign were, unless under very exceptional circumstances, refused. It was considered necessary to do so in consequence of the dearth of officers at the time; caused principally by insufficient entries of cadets in past years, and partly by the increased complements of lieutenants allowed to ships in commission. This necessity was, however, of a temporary nature, and is passing away. It is by no means intended to retain officers who wish to resign their commissions beyond the time during which it is considered indispensable in the public interests that they should remain. The Admiralty have no wish to retain officers in the Navy against their will.

  NAVY—THE DOCKYARDS—THE SHEERS AT PEMBROKE DOCKYARD.
  ADMIRAL MAYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has been informed, by very good authority, that the sheers at Pembroke could be completed in six or eight months if the work were carried on with proper energy; and, whether the Aurora's boilers would require to be put in before that time?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): It is anticipated that the Aurora's boilers will be ready to be placed on board early in March next. Even if the proposed shipbuilding programme for Pembroke Yard had rendered it advantageous to enter on the expense of erecting new sheers during the ensuing year, it is very doubtful whether they would be ready as early as March next.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOTS AT BELFAST—THE TRIAL OF THE WALKERS—CHALLENGING THE JURY.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland,

  1067
  Is it intended that the trial of the two Walkers for the murder of a policeman and a soldier during the Belfast riots should take place in Belfast; and, if so, what, if any, instructions have been given as to "stand asides"?
  THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): Yes, Sir; the case of the two Walkers shall be tried at the next Belfast Assizes. Although the case arose out of the Belfast riots, there is no reason to believe that such a case shall not be fairly and impartially tried there. The only instructions as to "stand asides" that ever have been issued are the instructions which I have already communicated to the House. Of course, these instructions will not be departed from in this case.
  MR. DILLON: Arising out of this Question, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he gave instructions in writing mentioning the very names of the men who were to be asked to stand aside in the recent political trials in Dublin?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  STREET IMPROVEMENTS (METROPOLIS)—CHARING CROSS STREET— THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  MAJOR RASCHasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will take into consideration the advisability of widening the lower portion of Charing Cross Street between the National Gallery and St. Martin's, either by cutting off an angle of the National Gallery, or removing the steps of St. Martin's, as the road is there reduced, where the traffic is heaviest, from a width of 130 to 45 feet?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): Everyone must, I think, agree as to the advisability of widening the lower portion of Charing Cross Street between the National Gallery and St. Martin's Church; and it seems to be obvious that this could be best accomplished by the removal of the steps of the church, which now project into the road at the corner where the traffic must be much heavier than on the western side. I myself believe that such a change might be made without any architectural disfigurement; but I have no authority in the matter. As to cutting off an angle of the National Gallery, if my hon. and gallant Friend
  1068
  means by that pulling down a portion of the building itself, I should feel bound to resist such a proposal. If he means cutting off part of the enclosed space in front of the building, that is a question for the Metropolitan Board of Works, whose property it is.
  SIR RICHARD PAGETinquired whether notice would be given to the House before anything was done in regard to the removal of the steps?
  MR. PLUNKET: I have no authority in the matter. An Act of Parliament would be required.
  MR. KING-HARMANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the question of cutting the steps of St. Martin's Church was brought before that House some years ago; that it was fully debated; and that the scheme was thrown out by a large majority?
  MR. PLUNKET: There was a Bill before the House and that clause was dropped; but whether there was a strong opposition to it or not I do not know.

  PRISONS (GREAT BRITAIN)—PRISON LABOUR—MAT-MAKING.
  MR. QUILTERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that such a large quantity of mats of one class are made in prisons that the authorities are obliged to sell them continually below the regular list price; and, if so, whether he will take steps to insure mat-weaving in prisons being spread over the whole range of the list, so as to prevent the excessive manufacture of one class of mat; whether, in view of the injury done to employers of free labour by the jobbing of prison labour to certain mat-making firms, the Government will take steps to put an end to the system; and, whether it is a fact that a former official in one of Her Majesty's prisons has had for some years the disposal of the labour of four or more prisons?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): It is not a fact that large quantities of mats of one class are made in prisons, nor that the authorities are obliged to sell them continually below the regular list price. The assortment of mats made is the same as that which existed when the Government took

  1069
  over the prisons in 1878, and the mats are sold at approved rates fully equal to those of private makers. The mat-making is spread, as far as possible, over the whole range of the list; and though the demand regulates, to some extent, the quantity of each class of mats supplied, none of the 10 classes are neglected. Considering the rates paid for the labour, it does not appear that any injury is done to the employers of free labour by the jobbing of prison labour to certain mat-makers. Large reductions have, however, been made in the number of prisons where this work is carried on, and efforts are being made further to reduce the number. It is the case that a person who hires labour at four of Her Majesty's prisons was formerly an official attached to the Prison Service; but he left the Service nearly 30 years ago.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—TEACHERS—MR. JAMES A. IRWIN, CARRICKAWILKIN, CO. ARMAGH.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Board of Commissioners of National Education (Ireland) have yet investigated and reported upon the alleged connection of Mr. James A. Irwin, teacher of Carrick-awilkin (County Armagh) National School, with the Orange Society; and what is the result of the inquiry?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The case is still under investigation.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE RECENT SOCIALIST DEMONSTRATIONS—(ME-TROPOLIS).
  MR. FISHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can furnish any information as to the number of extra police employed at the meeting of the Social Democratic League in Trafalgar Square on the 29th of August, 1886, and of the demonstration at St. Paul's on the 27th of February, and on similar meetings and demonstrations; what was the amount of extra pay granted to the police who were then employed; what was the number of extra hours which such police had to serve; what was the approximate cost to the ratepayers of
  1070
  London, and to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, of the preparations on the part of the Government to meet any disturbance of law and order on those occasions; and, whether the Government will consider the desirability of taking any steps to prohibit such meetings in the future?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The number of police employed at the meeting of the Social Democratic League on the 29th of August, 1886, was 2,373; at the demonstration at St. Paul's Cathedral on the 27th of February, 1887, 3,094; the City Police especially employed on the latter occasion were 746. The amount of extra pay granted to the Metropolitan Police on these two occasions was in all about £20, the amount of travelling expenses about £120. The approximate cost of the special employment of Metropolitan Police on these occasions was, therefore, about £140. The question of regulating such meetings in the future is now under my consideration.

  POLICE CLOTHING—THE SYSTEM OF CONTRACTS.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Messrs. Herbert, Brothers and Co., of Bethnal Green Road, E., contract with the Government to do a portion of their clothing; whether most of the work contracted for by that firm is sub-let to a middleman, who has to deposit a sum of £500 as security; whether this middleman again sub-lets the work to a second middleman, who also has to make a deposit as security; whether the work is then distributed amongst the "sweaters," who take the work home and get the work-people to work for low wages and during long hours; whether the places where the work is actually done are unhealthy "dens;" whether the work-hands are compelled to buy tea, coffee, and sugar on the premises under the penalty of a fine of 2s. 6d., or dismissal; whether the said firm employ a large number of foreign Jews on the premises, paying them at a lower rate of wages, on account of their ignorance of the English language; whether he will institute an inquiry; and, whether these circumstances constitute a violation of the Factory and Truck Acts?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Chief Inspector of Factories has made inquiries into this matter, and he infomrs me that this firm have formerly-contracted for police clothing, but are now engaged in other work. None of the work is sub-let to middlemen, and no deposit of money is made; but recently, owing to want of space, some of the work has been given out to old workmen of the firm, who do the work themselves and employ their own workpeople. The work is done in the ordinary tailors' work-rooms and not in living rooms. Most of the employés are of the Jewish persuasion. The men work long hours; but the women work late only on Thursday, which, I believe, is the regular custom with the Jews. I know nothing of the rate of wages; but I am told that when work is plentiful a good wage is obtainable. The firm supply tea on the premises, which the work-people can purchase at their option. There is no fine or dismissal in the event of their refusing to do so. I do not propose to institute any further inquiry; for, as far as I can ascertain, there is no violation of the Factories or Truck Acts.

  WAR OFFICE—(ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—AMMUNITION, &c.—SOLIDDRAWN CARTRIDGE CASES.
  COLONEL HUGHES -HALLETTasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, If he will state the cost of solid-drawn cartridge cases per 1,000; whether these cases are made entirely at Woolwich, or by any private manufacturing firm, other than Muirhead, Latimer, Clark, and Co; and, whether it is not a fact that the solid-drawn cartridge can be used several times for making fresh cartridges, an advantage not possessed by the Boxer cartridge?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): The average cost of solid-drawn cases For Martini-Henry cartridges has been £2 7s. per 1,000, and £2 11 s. for the Enfield Martini, and they have been made by several firms. No separate solid cases, but only complete cartridges, have been ordered from the particular firm in question. It is a fact that the solid-drawn cartridge case has the advantage over the rolled case that it can be used several times.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE MILITIA (IRELAND)—SUPPLY OF MARTINI-HENRY RIFLES.
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the fact that the English and Scotch Militia battalions are, and have been for some time, supplied with the Martini-Henry rifle, the Militia battalions in Ireland will be similarly supplied this year, instead of being allowed to train, as heretofore, with the obsolete Snider rifle?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Snider rifles, with which the Irish Militia are now armed, will be exchanged for Martini-Henry rifles as soon as the number in store of the latter arm will justify such a measure; but I fear that the exchange cannot take place in time for the present year's training.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—VOLUNTEER ARTILLERY—SUPPLY OF FIELD GUNS.
  MR. C. T. D. ACLANDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it be true that the field guns attached to No. 8 Battery, 1st Volunteer (Devonshire) Brigade, Western Division Royal Artillery, have been taken away, and are to be replaced by heavy guns, the battery being turned into a garrison battery; whether it is still intended to issue a large number of field guns to Volunteer Artillery; and, whether these guns have been removed against the urgent recommendation of the Officer Commanding Auxiliary Artillery, Western District?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): In the mobilization scheme which has been approved for home defence, certain batteries of Volunteer Artillery are allotted as garrison artillery for the large coast fortresses in their neighbourhood. This particular corps is allotted as part of the garrison of Plymouth; and its practice should, therefore, be carried on in forts or fixed batteries. The guns withdrawn will, consequently, not be returned to it. With regard to the general question of Volunteer Artillery, their armament, and their position in the general scheme of

  1073
  national defence, I propose to make a statement in the Memorandum which I shall submit to Parliament with the Army Estimates.

  GUN LICENCES (IRELAND)—CASE OF JAMES MAYE, ARDFINAN, CO. TIP-PERARY.
  MR. J. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, To state on what grounds was James Maye, of Ardfinan, County Tipperary, refused a licence for a gun by the Sessional Magistrates; whether the gun belonged to Maye's uncle, lately deceased, and was taken up by the police on the death of the owner; whether the police advised Maye to apply for the licence, so that they may restore the gun; and, whether Maye has a licence to carry arms on his farm at Corrin Fermoy, County Cork?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The licensing officer did not consider this a case in which a licence should be issued, and I see no reason to interfere with his discretion.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: What did he do with the gun? Was there a confiscation of the gun?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I will inquire about that.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CASE OF JAMES CLERY, ARDMOYLE, CASHEL—CONDUCT OF AN EMERGENCY MAN.
  MR. J. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the eviction of James Clery, Ardmoyle, Cashel, County Tipperary, on the 4th instant, an emergency man, named Robert Millet, presented a revolver at a crowd of about 300 people, and placed it at the breasts of a few persons; whether Clery demanded his arrest by the District Inspector Green, who was in charge of the police, and who declined to act except on a warrant; whether Clery and witnesses of the alleged assault went to Colonel Mansergh, the nearest Magistrate, and asked for a warrant for Millet's arrest, and were told by him that he had got no warrant in the house; whether Clery and witnesses then applied to Denis Scully, Petty Sessions Clerk, Cashel, who peremptorily refused a form of warrant,
  1074
  saying, "he would not put any magisstrate in a difficulty;" and, whether he will make inquiries, with a view to facilitate the operation of the law in this and similar cases in the district mentioned?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The alleged assault was not witnessed by any of the police, and the officer in charge declined therefore to make the arrest; but referred the complainants to a magistrate. Colonel Mansergh, to whom they went, was of opinion the case should be dealt with by summons. The Clerk of Petty Sessions merely declined to issue a warrant without directions from a magistrate, and pointed out it was a case for a summons. This view of the case was subsequently supported by the Cashel Bench of Magisstrates, and the Executive sees no cause to interfere.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—CARRIGAHOLT PIER, CO. CLARE.
  MR. JORDANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether £11,000 of the £13,500 cost of erecting the pier at Carrigaholt, County Clare, were granted by the Piers and Harbours Commissioners, for the express purpose of enabling fishery smacks to come in at all states of the tides; whether, as it has been designed by the Engineers of the Board of Works, it will afford that accommodation; whether the design of the engineers of the Board of Works is to put an elbow or bend on the pier; whether it is the intention of the engineers, or those responsible for the works, to leave the building of this elbow addition to some future time; whether the pier will then be unsuited for the purposes for which it was originally intended; whether representations have been made to the Board of Works by persons in the locality of the necessity and advisability of running out the pier into deep water; whether the Board of Works have declined to accede to these representations, and adhere to their own design; whether, if to admit vessels at all states of the tide (as originally intended) the pier will afterwards be extended into deep water, and the elbow, if erected, must be removed; whether that would entail large outlay which might be avoided by carrying out now

  1075
  the suggestions made to the Board of Works; and, whether there is any objection to lay upon the Table all the correspondence on the subject of this pier, including any recommendations made by the Piers and Harbours Commissioners?
  THE SECRETART (Mr. JACKSON): The amount of grant proposed by the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commissioners for the pier at Carriga-holt was £13,500. The pier at present under construction is that sanctioned on the recommendation of those Commissioners, and will run out into a depth at low-water spring tides of eight feet; being the maximum accommodation that can be obtained for the money available for the construction of the pier. To make it suitable for first-class fishing vessels at all stages of the tide, it would be necessary to extend its length so as to have not less than 12 feet in depth at low-water spring tides, but this would cost an additional £12,000, none of which is forthcoming. The design approved for the work has a cant or elbow at the outer end of the pier, and this portion is now being proceeded with. To have merely extended the pier direct without the cant would have left the harbour exposed without reaching deep water, as supposed; the depth at the head of the pier would, in fact, have only been increased by a few inches. The Board of Works, though most anxious to meet the wishes of those interested, have had no means for carrying out any other work than that originally approved and sanctioned. I see no public advantage in laying the correspondence upon the table.

  LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL—EXTENSION OF THE IMPOST TO THE METROPOLITAN AREA.
  MR. LIONEL COHENasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether, in the event of the London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Bill passing the second reading he will undertake to propose or support Clauses in Committee by which a proportionate share in these Duties will be secured to those districts which are outside the Metropolitan area, but which, nevertheless, now contribute to the Duties?
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDI beg to ask a further Question, Whether, in ease the efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend to obtain the insertion of such a Clause are unsuccessful, he will undertake to voteagainst the third reading of the Bill?
  THE CHAIRMAN (Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG): In reply to my hon. Friend, I beg to say that when the London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Bill has passed the second reading, and has been referred to a Committee, I, on behalf of the Corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board, will propose, or support, the introduction of a Clause for the application of a portion of the duties to the requirements of districts outside the Metropolis, but within the area of the duties. In regard to the second Question, I beg leave to decline to answer it. If the hon. Gentleman likes to put it on the Paper I will consider whether I will do so or not.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman afford any estimate of what proportion of the duties should be paid over to the parishes outside?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for doing his best to put me and my Friends into a position of very great difficulty. It strikes me that is a matter for the Committee to decide, and when the Committee has decided it we will accept it.
  SIR CHARLES PALMER (Durham, Jarrow) (for Mr. JOICEY)asked whether there is any arrangement or understanding with the Corporation of the City of London to make any payment jointly towards the expenses of promoting meetings in the Metropolis in support of their Bill for the renewal of the Coal and Wine Dues; or whether the Metropolitan Board itself has supplied, or is supplying, any money for this purpose?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL - HOGG: There is no such arrangement or understanding as the hon. Member alludes to; and the Metropolitan Board has not supplied, and is not supplying, any money for the purpose of promoting meetings in support of the Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Bill.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND)—BANKERS' ACCOUNT OF THE MACROOM BOARD OF GUARDIANS— TRANSFER OF ACCOUNT.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the Board has declined to accept or recognize the reasons set forth in an unanimous Resolution of the Macroom Board of Guardians on the 29th January for changing the accounts of the union from the National Bank (Limited) to the Munster and Leinster Bank (Limited), and whether the Board are now prepared to sanction such a change; what were the reasons which actuated the Local Government Board in refusing to sanction the change of treasurership; whether it is a fact that the National Bank dishonoured the cheques presented by the union at first, when their overdraft did not exceed £1,493 1s. 5 d., and, secondly, when the overdraft was diminished to £1,077 6s. 7d.; whether such action on the part of the said bank has seriously embarrassed the union for several months, most of the officials and contractors not having been paid for several months; whether several of the contractors have threatened to discontinue supplies; whether the Munster and Leinster Bank offered the union accommodation to the extent of £2,000; and, whether the Local Government Board will see fit to sanction and promote the change of treasurer in the said union?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I understand that most of the statements in this Question are substantially correct; but there seems to have been lately some change in the situation, for it does not appear that the Guardians are now making any representations as to financial difficulties, the treasurer having cashed all cheques presented.

  HORSES—PROHIBITION OF EXPORTATION FROM GERMANY TO ENGLAND.
  MR. WHITMOREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can give, or suggest, any remedy to Mr. W. Bramley, who, before the issue of the decree prohibiting the exportation of horses from Germany, purchased there and paid £3,000 for horses to be exclusively used in England, and who has been prevented by the Ger-
  1078
  man Government from exporting these horses at a great and continuing loss to himself?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I regret very much that there is no remedy for the misfortune on account of which Mr. Bramley is suffering. It is incidental to the precautionary measure of prohibiting the export of horses from Germany.

  MERCHANDIZE MARKS ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL—HALL MARKING OF WATCH CASES.
  MR. WIGGINasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether Her Majesty's Government, before proceeding with the Merchandize Marks Act (1862) Amendment Bill, will confer with the Governors of the Birmingham Assay Office, seeing that out of 1,156,748 watch cases marked during the last three years, Birmingham marked 651,171, London 409,788, and Chester 95,789?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Department is not unacquainted with the practice of the different assay offices, including Birmingham and Chester. It is, indeed, particularly indebted to the assay master of the Birmingham office for information recently afforded on matters affecting the assay of watch cases; and it hopes to have the opinion of the Governors of the different assay offices in giving practical effect to any new regulations for the marking of watch cases.

  NAVY—THE DOCKYARDS—FATAL ACCIDENT AT PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD.
  SIR WILLIAM CROSSMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstances in which a labourer, named Walter Weeks, lost his life while at work in Portsmouth Dockyard on the afternoon of Friday last; whether there are any regulations in force in the Royal Dockyards forbidding men to adjust straps of the kind that this man was adjusting at the time of the accident while the machinery is in motion; whether arrangements could be made for re-adjusting such straps while machinery is in motion without any risk of danger to life; and, if so,

  1079
  whether the Admiralty will consider the advisability of at once carrying out such arrangements; and, what compensation will be made to the widow and children of the deceased Walter Weeks?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I regret to say that Walter Weeks lost his life from becoming entangled among the machinery while adjusting the strap for turning some portion of it. There are no regulations forbidding men to adjust the straps while the machinery is in motion, and it would hardly be practicable to carry them out if they existed. Arrangements for adjusting the straps without risk are, as far as possible, already made, and this is shown by the scarcity of accidents from this cause occurring at the several yards. Any improvements in the existing arrangements which suggest themselves would, as far as possible, be carried out. The compensation that can be made to the widow and children must be governed by the regulations laid down for accident cases. The amount will not be known until the circumstances are fully reported.

  CENTRAL ASIA—REINFORCEMENT OF THE CHINESE GARRISONS IN TURKESTAN.
  DR. TANNERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true that the Chinese garrisons in Turkestan are being strongly reinforced; and, whether this reinforcement has been carried out in pursuance of an understanding between China and England for the protection of the latter's Eastern Empire?
  THE UNDER SECERTARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No information on the subject has reached Her Majesty's Government.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—POST OFFICE AT WHITTY'S CROSS, CO. WEXFORD.
  MR. J. E. REDMONDasked the Postmaster General, Whether an application has been made for the establishment of a post office at Whitty's Cross, Blackwater, County Wexford; whether complaints have reached him of the inadequacy of the present postal arrangements of the district; and whe-
  1080
  ther the matter will now be considered by him?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (Cambridge University): Applications for a post office at Whitty's Cross have at various times been received; but the amount of correspondence to be benefited is found to be far too small to warrant the expenditure involved.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE BROOKE ESTATE—COOLGREANY.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What were the reasons for the evictions recently carried out by Captain Hamilton on the Brooke Estate, at Coolgreany; if Captain Hamilton's conduct, in acting as Sheriff on the occasion, was legal; if it is a fact that two of the tenants evicted—namely, John O'Neill and William Ford, owed the landlord no rent at all; and, if it is a fact that the landlord was indebted to O'Neill for work done?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I have no information which would enable me to answer the third and fourth paragraphs of this Question. I presume the reason for the evictions was that the tenants had not paid their rents. I am not aware that Captain Hamilton acted as Sheriff, and I do not see how he could have done so.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE CHALLONER SMITH COLLECTION OF MEZZOTINT ENGRAVINGS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, in view of their extreme historical interest and peculiar artistic value to the Irish people, the Government will have the Challoner Smith Collection of Mezzotint Engravings purchased for the Irish National Gallery?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JaCKSON)(who replied) said: Representations have been made to the Treasury by an unofficial Committee in favour of the purchase of this Collection; but the Treasury declined, having no funds available for the purpose.

  AFRICA—THE GOLD COAST—CONTEMPLATED ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY BY ENGLAND.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is contemplated to include any fresh territory in the British Protectorate on the Gold Coast; and, if so, to what extent, and on what conditions?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): Two additions have recently been made to the Gold Coast Protectorate. 1. The small territory of Krikor, a strip of land about 20 miles by six, lying to the east of the Volta, between Awoonah and Afloo; both of which were already under British protection. It was desirable to accept the offer of Krikor for administrative and fiscal reasons, and the Treaty was ratified by the late Government in June last. 2. On the North-West confines of the Protectorate, adjacent to Gaman, an independent State, the addition of the Kingdom of Sefwhi to the Protectorate was authorized by my Predecessor. The object was to secure the freedom of the roads through it, as they are important trade routes; and the necessity of securing them has been strongly urged on Her Majesty's Government by merchants interested in the Colony. The principal conditions are freedom of trade routes and cessation of slavery. No responsibility is involved of defending the country against any Native aggression.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—NOTICES ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SHERIFF, CO. WATERFORD.
  MR. P. J. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the police in the County Waterford have, in some instances, refused to serve notices on jurors issued by the Deputy Sheriff appointed, by Sir Thomas Esmonde prior to the date on which Sir Thomas Esmonde received the communication from the Lords Justices purporting to remove him from the position of High Sheriff; and, if so, on what grounds; and, on what grounds the Irish Government took exception, to the appointment of Mr. L. C. Strange, solicitor, as Sub-Sheriff by Sir Thomas Esmonde, and on what day they
  1082
  decided that such appointment was objectionable?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I am informed that the police did not refuse to serve any notices on jurors issued by the Deputy Sheriff prior to the date of Sir Thomas Esmonde's receiving the communication from the Lords Justices. They would not be justified in serving notices issued by the Deputy Sheriff after that date. Mr. Strange had identified himself with the Plan of Campaign by attending and speaking at meetings, and his appointment was part of the previous conduct of Sir Thomas Esmonde referred to in the letter of the Lord Justices of February 21.
  MR. P. J. POWER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has not approved of the appointment of the Sub - Sheriff of Dublin County, who earned an unenviable notoriety in connection with the Tory Party seven years ago?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: It is not my duty to approve or disapprove of the appointment of a Sub-Sheriff. The Government can only act with regard to a Sub - Sheriff through the medium of the Sheriff who appoints him.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—(TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION BETWEEN WEXFORD AND ENNISCORTHY.
  MR. J. E. REDMONDasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the state of the telegraphic communication between the towns of Wexford and Enniscorthy; whether, under the existing arrangement, all messages from Enniscorthy to Wexford must be transmitted first to Dublin, and thence to Wexford, and vice versâ; whether the result of this system is that it frequently takes less time to send a message between these towns by rail than by telegraph; whether a very considerable telegraphic business is transacted between these towns; and, whether he can now see his way to grant the prayer of the Memorial recently addressed to the Secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, by the merchants and traders of Enniscorthy, asking for the establishment of direct telegraphic communication between these towns?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): My attention has been called to the subject of the hon. Member's Question; and while I am unable to grant the request that direct telegraphic communication should be provided between Wexford and Enniscorthy, because the amount of business between the two towns will not warrant the expense of providing and working a direct wire, I am prepared to expedite the transmission of telegrams by improving the existing means of communication. The daily number of messages is about eight, and the average time of transmission 15 minutes.

  NAVY—THE INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT—DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS.
  COLONEL HUGHES - HALLETT(for Admiral MAYNE (Pembroke and Haverfordwest) asked, the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has observed that what appears to be the full text of the instructions to the Intelligence Department of the Navy has been published in the newspapers; and whether this was done with, the sanction of the Board; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent the publication of documents of an evidently confidential character by some person or persons in his Department?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The document in question was confidential, and the information which led to the publication of the instructions to the Intelligence Department constituted a grave breach of trust on the part of someone in the Admiralty. Means were recently adopted which it was hoped would have stopped the supply of information to the public except through the authorized channels. In a large and scattered establishment like the Admiralty reliance must, to a large extent, be placed on the good faith of its staff. It is much to be regretted that this sense of integrity has been found wanting in some one member of the Establishment unknown. The Admiralty will not cease to use every endeavour to prevent the publication of such papers in future.
  MR. CHILDERS: Can the noble Lord say whether the Admiralty made any investigation as to
  1084
  the previous leaking out of a memorandum on precisely the same subject?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: A very careful and elaborate inquiry was made, and I believe the means were ascertained.
  MR. CHILDERS: Can they be stated without disadvantage to the Public Service?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It became public by means by which a great many other documents have become known—through the waste paper basket.

  ARMY—RANK OF MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  SIR GUYER HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, since relative rank of the Medical Officers of the Army has been abolished, what rank, if any, they now have in the Army?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): A medical officer holds the rank in the Army which his commission confers upon him; and under article 125 a of the Royal Warrant it is provided that, for purposes of precedence, allowances, and widow's pension, medical officers shall rank with combatant officers as there laid down. As a matter of fact, the abolition of the term "relative rank" has not altered the position of medical officers in any respect whatever.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND VENEZUELA— CESSATION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS—PROTECTION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  MR. WATTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the cessation of diplomatic relations between this country and Venezuela, If he is prepared to state what action has been, or is proposed to be, taken for the protection of British subjects and their property in the latter country; more especially in the disputed territory adjacent to the Colony of British Guiana, now under the administration of the Venezuelan Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): It is expected that the German Government will consent to undertake the protection of British subjects and their property in Venezuela during the suspension of diplomatic re-

  1085
  lations with this country. The Commander of Her Majesty's Naval Forces on the Station has been instructed to arrange for the protection of the persons and property of British subjects in the disputed territory, which is not under the administration of the Venezuelan Government, as stated in the Question of the hon. Member.

  POST OFFICE—APPOINTMENTS TO POSTMASTERSHIPS.
  MR. CONYBEAREwho had on the Paper the following Question—To ask the Postmaster-General, Whether it is the fact that he has several times lately, and, if so, in what particular cases, when a Post-mastership salary of £120 in England or £100 in Scotland or Ireland has been proposed, cut the proposal down and given a salary of £119 or £99 as the case may be; whether, in any and what cases posts have been conferred upon persons connected with or related to himself; and, if so, whether in accordance with or contrary to the recommendations of a Committee of the Heads of Branches in the Post Office; whether such Committee have or had actual knowledge of the work of all the men concerned; and, whether he was himself acquainted with their work?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The hon. Member for the Western Division of Cornwall has sent me Notice that he proposes to defer his Question; but I hope the House will allow me to take the earliest opportunity of replying to it. I have to say, Sir, in reply to the hon. Member's first Question, that on two occasions only in England and one in Scotland, to the best of my knowledge, since I have been in Office, I have reduced the proposed salary of £120 in England or £100 in Scotland to £119 or £99 respectively. There has been no such ease in Ireland in my time. There was, I believe, one recent case in which the salary of an Irish post office was so reduced; but that was done by my Predecessor (Lord Wolverton). In the following cases I have raised the salary to above £120 or £100 respectively—Ambleside, Cullompton, Denbigh, Enfield, Fakenham, Hayle, Keswick, Launceston, Llangollen, Sowerby Bridge; and in Scotland, Jedburgh and Turriff; and in Ireland, Fermoy, Letterkenny, Nenagh, and New-
  1086
  townards, and to these may be added Listowel. As regards the second Question, I have to say that I have in no case conferred any post on any person related to myself; though I can assure the hon. Member that I should not have shrunk from doing so if I had thought such an appointment a proper one in the interests of the Public Service. In one recent case I have promoted to the first class a gentleman whom, together with three or four other deserving clerks, I was requested to supersede by a junior officer. This gentleman belongs, I believe, to a family connected by marriage with another branch of my own; but I have not, and never had, any personal acquaintance with the gentleman in question or with any member of his family. I have no doubt that the Secretary, and those whom he may have consulted, had actual knowledge of the work of the clerks concerned; and I should not have declined to act on their advice if I had not satisfied myself, by inquiry in the Department, that to do so would have been, in my opinion, an act not only unfair to the particular gentleman whom I have promoted, but also injurious to the Public Service, by its discouraging effect on the class to which he belonged.

  IRELAND—MORTGAGES AND CHARGES ON LANDED PROPERTY.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Government intend submitting proposals dealing with mortgages and charges on Irish landed property to the House; whether they will allow payments made in respect of tithe-rent charges, quit rents, and Crown rents, on Irish estates to be reduced in the same proportion as the rentals of such estates have been reduced; and, whether, when Legacy and Succession Duty has been paid within recent years on landed property in Ireland—the value of which property has since been greatly diminished—they will allow the amount of Duty paid in excess of the value to be returned to those who paid it?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has already answered the third paragraph of this Question, to the effect that the law directs that Legacy and

  1087
  Succession Duty shall be assessed on the value of the property at the time when the event happens which gives rise to a claim for duty. On the first and second paragraphs I can only say that the recommendations of the Royal Commission will be carefully considered by the Government; but I cannot hold out any hopes that mortgages can be dealt with.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "BELLEISLE"—THE "BROAD ARROW AND MILITARY MAGAZINE."
  MR. P. M'DONALDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been drawn to the statements in The Broad Arrow and Military Magazine, to the effect that the Belleisle, instead of being only six weeks absent from the Kingstown Station,
  "Is ordered to be out of the hands of the Dockyard Authorities by the 24th of May, in order to take part in the great Naval Review of the 20th of that month, and is then to proceed on a cruise that will necessitate her absence from Dublin Bay till August;"
  and, whether the absence of the vessel will, therefore, be six months instead of six weeks, as previously stated; and, if so, whether the Belleisle will be replaced during the time on this important Station?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I cannot be answerable for the statements published in The Broad Arrow, and can only repeat that the re-fit of the Belleisle will take six weeks. The annual cruise of the Reserve Squadron usually occupies another six weeks. There is no intention of replacing her with another ship while she is absent from her Station.

  LUNACY LAWS CONSOLIDATION BILL—INCORPORATION OF "THE IDIOTS' ACT, 1886."
  MR. SALTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is proposed to incorporate "The Idiots'Act, 1886,"in the Lunacy Laws Consolidation Bill of the present Session?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The subject, as my hon. Friend is aware, has been brought under the attention of the Lord Chancellor by the Lunacy Commissioners, and the matter is now under consideration. It would, however, be premature to arrive at any conclusion on the subject before the Amendment Bill
  1088
  (on which the consolidation depends) has made further progress; and the question is the more important, because the legislation with reference to idiots was deliberately severed from the Bills relating to lunatics in the last Parliament.

  LICHFIELD CHARITIES—LOWE'S CHARITY.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps, if any, have been taken with the view of securing to the inhabitants of Lichfield a direct representation on the Board of Trustees of Lowe's Charity in that city, in accordance with the Resolution of the House passed on the 18th of May in last year?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Lowe's Charity at Lichfield is now regulated by a scheme established by an Order of the Charity Commissioners made on the 26th of March, 1886, which provides for the appointment by the Town Council of Lichfield (as representative Trustees) of five Trustees out of 12. No proceedings are pending before the Commissioners for any variation of that scheme. With regard to the Resolution of the House of the 18th of May, I beg to refer the hon. Baronet to the answer I gave him on the 3rd instant.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL FUNDS— INVESTMENT.
  SIR SAMUEL WILSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will take into consideration the question of investing the sum of £1,378,817 19 s. of the funds of Greenwich Hospital, now in Three per Cent Annuities, in Australian, New Zealand, or Canadian Government Loans, yielding about 4 per cent, and thus effect a yearly saving of about £13,788 for the benefit of the Greenwich Pensioners?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT(A LORD of the ADMIRALTY) (who replied) said: After certain re-investments, which are already sanctioned, have been carried out, the amount of Greenwich Hospital Funds standing in Three per Cent Annuities will only be about £945,000. These funds are public trust money; and it is not deemed advisable to transfer the investment to the Colonial loans mentioned in the Question of my hon. Friend,

  LONDON CORPORATION (CHARGES OF MALVERSATION).
  MR.HOWELLwho had the following Notice of Motion on the Paper:—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon certain charges, brought under the notice of this House by Mr. Howell, Member for the North East Division of Bethnal Green, and Mr. Bradlaugh, Member for the Borough of Northampton, alleging improper use and malversation of public funds of the Corporation of London, by or with the consent of members and officials of such Corporation:—That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do take evidence on oath,"
  said: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can state what course the Government are going to take with regard to my Motion? I understood he promised to say today.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): There will be no opposition on the part of the Government to the Motion which I understand the hon. Member has put on the Paper. I think, however, it would have been better if the hon. Member had set out in his Motion the charges which he proposes to bring against the Corporation; but I assume he is prepared to lay them before the Committee specifically when it meets.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consent if the Committee as nominated does not include my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bethnal Green and myself, to an Instruction which I shall move, giving my hon. Friend and myself power to call and examine witnesses before the Commission?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is hardly reasonable that I should be asked to anticipate the course which the Committee of Selection may take. I propose that the Committee of Selection shall take the entire responsibility for the nomination of the Committee; and if the two hon. Members (Mr. Howell and Mr. Bradlaugh) are not named on the Committee, then will be the time for them to make an application to the House.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Then, if the Committee of Selection does not so name us, I give Notice that I shall move such an Instruction to the Committee.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1886–7).
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,960, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland."
  MR. DILLON: This is not the first time that I have directed the attention of a Committee of this House to the growing charge of the Irish Constabulary. I recollect that shortly after I entered the House, in the year 1881, I opposed this Vote, which has always seemed to me to be a shocking and disgraceful waste of the public money of England. The Irish Constabulary, of late years, has always been maintained on a war footing. I remember on one occasion a declaration being made by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) that the opinion he had held for years was that the maintenance of the Irish Constabulary, as a military force, was a standing and lasting disgrace to the English Government. The right hon. Gentleman added that he looked forward confidently to the near approach of a happier time, when this expenditure would be cut down. That speech was delivered five or six years ago. But has the expense of the Irish Constabulary been cut down? Instead of having been diminished in any way, it has been augmented year by year. This year we have already passed Estimates amounting to £1,397,153 for the maintenance of the Constabulary Force of Ireland, and we are now called, upon to vote a further sum of £30,000. The Constabulary of Ireland have legitimate duties to perform which, at the present moment, they entirely neglect. They leave crime altogether undetected and unpunished, in spite of the monstrous sums which are expended on them. Now, I maintain that if the force were not

  1091
  required to perform other duties besides those connected with the detection of murderers and robbers, it could be maintained in a liberal manner and with efficiency at the comparatively low cost of £400,000 a-year. What does that mean? We hear of Ministers leaving the Cabinet because they desire to see economical arrangements effected in the Army and Navy; and here in Ireland—although we are accused of desiring to plunge our arms elbow deep into the pockets of the British taxpayer—we are willing to make you a present of £800,000 a-year. I feel bound to say that if the present policy is continued the cost of the Irish Constabulary will soon reach£l,500,000, or. perhaps, £2,000,000 a-year. What is the reason we are asked to vote this sum of £30,000 additional? Not because we have not already provided for the extra pay and travelling expenses of the Constabulary, because for years we have had to vote heavy sums for those purposes. Indeed, it is the best paid and best eared-for Police Force in the world; but still, when the men are sent out to assist in carrying out evictions, it is necessary to give them a large additional sum per day for extra duties—a sum far larger than any hard-working man in Ireland could hope to obtain from a day's labour. The House has already voted a sum of £62,500 for extra pay and travelling expenses this year, and we are now asked to increase that sum by over £30,000, making in all £93,467, for extra allowances and travelling expenses. A more monstrous waste of the public money was never made. I am afraid that I must trespass at considerable length on the attention of the Committee while I direct the attention of hon. Members to the way in which this money has been squandered in Ireland, not only for utterly useless purposes, but for purposes of the gravest possible mischief—with this result only, that the uselessness of the police in Ireland is made more manifest day by day. As a Police Force they are of no value whatever, and they are chiefly used in parading about the country as if they were a foreign force in the occupation of an enemy's territory; and they have been employed in assisting in evictions and in protecting Government reporters. This Estimate for travelling expenses and extra allowances deals only with
  1092
  three matters—first of all, suppression of public meetings; secondly, the carrying out of evictions; and, thirdly, the protection of reporters sent by the Government to report the words of any man who dares to open his mouth in Ireland. The system has been going on for the last six years without any one rising to explain what good has been done by it. The Government never get a conviction, and they might as well dispense with these police reports altogether. No doubt there is an accumulated number of them; but who, in the name of Heaven, will ever read through them? Hundreds and hundreds of speeches have been reported which would fill that Table if they were piled up together, and they have been reported for no object under the sun. As to the first item in these Estimates, in looking over the detailed list I have certainly been led to believe that the Government have not honestly prepared it. I believe they have been ashamed to come before this Committee and tell us the sum they have lavished in Ireland in carrying out evictions during the last two or three months. If the Committee could only realize the large sums of money that have been spent in these evictions, they would arrive at a conclusion that the time has come when, if the public could know how the money has been spent, they would rise up in rebellion and put a stop to it. There are items here for car-hire, railway fares, and marching money for carrying out the duties described in the sub-head—namely, evictions and suppression of public meetings, and the total amounts to £11,164. I have been told, on very good authority, that the car-hire alone in the eviction of four families on Lord Clanricarde's estate at Woodford came to £1,372. It is told of one man that he went to these evictions with an old and dilapidated car and a broken-down horse which he had borrowed from a neighbour. When he returned from Woodford he was enabled to buy himself a new car and a horse. He appears to have been paid £13 for horse and car - hire to enable him to attend the Woodford evictions. Now, be it remembered that the whole sum in dispute was exactly £50, and the entire rental of the four farms from which the tenants have been evicted came to the enormous sum of £92. For carrying

  1093
  out these evictions the Government have expended £1,372 in one item alone, and the object of the evictions was to turn out the tenants by a man who has since proved himself to be little short of a madman. What has been the result? We are told that it is necessary to do such things and to waste such sums of money in order to maintain law and order in Ireland. Now, let me ask the Government to consider what they have got for this £1,372. They have secured this result—that the whole of the Clanricarde Estate is in a state of revolution against the payment of rent. That which you have done at Woodford has made it impossible for Lord Clanricarde to get a shilling of rent, and he never will get a shilling until he comes down to the terms which the tenants offer so long as this system is going on. The only justification for this monstrous waste of money is that you are going to restore law and order in Ireland. Now, have you made any advance in that direction? The only result you have achieved as yet has been the turning out of four men from their houses. They have not paid the rent, and, instead of making them pay, you have induced 15,000 men to declare that they will refuse to pay their rent until these four men are put back upon their farms. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland plainly that not one shilling of rent will be paid on the Clanricarde Estate until he puts these four men back again, and undoes the work which was done in Woodford in August last. The present system, if continued, must inevitably disgrace any Government that is prepared to carry it on. Let me take another instance, and really I think it is only fair that the Committee should see they get value for their money in any case. The second case I had something to do with myself. I refer to the Glenbeigh evictions. I am not going into the details of those evictions, because I think we have heard enough of them in this House; but I wish to point out that, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself, we are now called upon to vote a sum of £450 for the extra pay and allowances of the police who were employed in carrying out those evictions, and yet there is not a man in England, whether he be Conservative or Liberal, who is
  1094
  not utterly disgusted with the manner in which those evictions were carried out. In order to evict these poor tenants, and burn their houses down, you have now to pay £450 of English money. What have you gained? Have you restored law and order? Have you conciliated the people? There was no combination in this locality against the payment of rent. The members of the Land League did pay their rent, and others paid all they were able to pay. You have spent £450 in evicting these persons, and now the whole of the tenants of the Glenbeigh Estate refuse to pay any more. Therefore, you have only succeeded in ruining the landlord. What has occurred at Ballyferreter? You have there taught them to realize the lesson you have been teaching them for the last 50 years—namely, that where they submit to the law they get no mercy, and that where they resist the law they get justice. An agent was sent down there before the police arrived on the scene, and, before Lord Cork's agent called in the police, he refused to give any better terms to the tenants than one year's rent and the costs. When the police were sent down the people met them armed with such rude weapons as they could collect. They met the police, resisted their progress, and put them to flight. The next day a British gunboat was employed to assist the police. Surely this was a spectacle for gods and men—a British gunboat employed to restore order in these country districts! What did the people do then? When the police came down they faced them as before; they assembled on the mountain, rolled down huge boulders, and the police had to fight their way. In the end the landlord had to accept the tenants' terms. That is the lesson you are teaching the people of Ireland. If they obey the law they get no mercy; but if they will fight the police, the better they fight the more they will get. That is a lesson which the Chief Secretary and the Government are teaching the people of Ireland all over the country, and it is a lesson which I have learned from my childhood upwards. As long as the people have remained quiet they have been exterminated; but when they rise and break the law, and make violent resistance, they get terms. Yet the Government have the audacity

  1095
  to come forward now and ask the people of England to pay £450 for burning down the houses of the poor tenants in Glenbeigh. They are, further, asked to pay £1,500 or £2,000 for this gallant endeavour to give effect to the insanities of Lord Clanricarde. I know that the Government themselves were disgusted with the conduct of Lord Clanricarde. His own agent was so disgusted that he left him; and now you are beginning to see the consequences of refusing to alter the law at the demand of the people of Ireland. The Government are compelled at this moment to place the forces of the Crown at the disposal of a man whom they regard with the utmost abhorrence and disgust, and whom they have endeavoured vainly to control. They feel themselves called upon to place at Lord Clanricarde's disposal as many armed men as he chooses to demand, in order that they may advance into a country where the people refuse to yield, and where nothing can follow but strife. Before I leave this subject I should like to relate a circumstance which will remain in my memory as long as I live. The police who were sent down to Glenbeigh formed into column, and they marched to a remote house, four miles away on the mountain, occupied by a Mrs. Moriarty. The baton men led the van, like a body of skirmishers; then came the police armed with their swords and rifles, with two Emergency crowbar men in the middle, and followed by the representatives of the Press and the peasantry. In that order they marched for four miles along the road-side some 200 strong, and they consumed the entire day, at a probable cost to the country of £40 or £50. And what was the result? When we got to Mrs. Moriarty's house, and the agent went in, it was discovered that this was the case of a joint holding, and that Mrs. Moriarty had offered her rent to the agent, who refused to take it. The agent refused because this woman's brother—who was a joint tenant in the holding—could not pay, and, on inquiry, they declared to me that they honestly believed he had not a shilling in the world. In this case, this body of police were marched for a considerable distance to evict a tenant who had offered payment of the rent. It was the most stupid and irritating exhibition I ever witnessed in my life. I talked to the woman, and
  1096
  I said—"I wonder how people remain in this place at all." She said—"I thought I should be rich here; and so I should have been if two cows had not died on me in the summer." I do not believe for a moment that she was telling an untruth. Two of her cows had died during the summer, and she had only one left. Notwithstanding this, she had offered to pay her rent, and she had brought it in twice, and laid it on the table before the agent. Nevertheless, this large body of police was marched to her holding. She informed me that the money she had tendered in payment of the rent she had obtained from some of her children who are in service. "Oh;" she said, "I cannot pay now as I used to do, because my son left me last year to go to America, and he left me in a hole. But, Sir," she added, "I cannot blame him. I have been robbing him of his wages ever since he was 15 years of age, and I have devoted every shilling to the payment of the rent." This interview with this poor woman will remain impressed on my mind as long as I live. These are the persons the police are employed to evict. Then, I would ask, are we getting the value of our money for evictions of this kind? Is there any Unionist who imagines that we are getting value, and that they will maintain the Union for another six years like those we have just passed through? You are now driving Ireland into anarchy, and there really exists no Government at all. If the Unionists in this House desire to maintain the Union, the sooner they bring in a Bill to stop evictions the better. We are now paying for the suppression of public meetings in Ireland. Meetings have been suppressed without the slightest justification even in the most disturbed times when the greatest excitement has prevailed, but which have not been stained by an act of violence or a single crime. I must confess that every Monday morning I have opened the newspapers with a feeling of dread, expecting to hear that there had been a collision between the Government and the people. I warn the Government that we shall continue to hold these meetings. I defy the Government to put them down, and if bloodshed follows, on their heads be the crime and the shame. Who is it that is breaking the law? We, who desire to give vent to our

  1097
  grievances, or the Government who are endeavouring to suppress liberty of speech and the right of public meeting in Ireland? The Government proclaimed the meeting at Coolgreaney. I have here a copy of the Proclamation signed by a General Officer in Her Majesty's Army—Sir Redvers Buller. We are told that the Government proclaimed that meeting not because any information had been sworn that it was likely to lead to a breach of the peace, but because in their impression, it had a tendency to promote an illegal object, and, therefore, they ought to prevent it. Talk as you may, if such a power is placed in the hands of the Executive the right of public meeting and liberty of speech will be at an end. Is it to be in the power of an Executive acting in the dark in Dublin Castle to proclaim public meetings in Ireland, ad libitum, on the representation of some land agent who goes up the back stairs and says that in his opinion a particular meeting which has been announced to be held is called to support the Plan of Campaign? If this kind of action is to be taken the right of free speech will be at an end in Ireland, and I tell the Government plainly that we will not tamely submit to such a course. We held our meeting last Sunday, although it was proclaimed by the Government, and the Government knew nothing of it until it had been held. We shall continue to do so, and if we are interfered with and blood is shed in consequence let that blood be on the head of the Government who attempt to suppress the right of public meeting. What happened at Coolgreaney? I mention this because it illustrates in a graphic manner the uselessness of employing the police in such a way. We have heard in this House complaint after complaint of the prevalence of undetected crime and outrage in Ireland. Why is that? It is because the police are useless. They can put down meetings in Ireland, and can bâton the people; but they cannot apprehend a murderer or put a stop to moonlighting. What was it that they tried to do at Coolgreaney? The General Officer to whom I have referred attempted to put down the Coolgreaney meeting. Tie declined to be humbugged, and he sent down 200 police and mounted men to scour the country. Well, what happened? We sent out
  1098
  bogus cars; the police rode after them, and then we held our meeting with bands and banners and with 2,000 persons present. It was held within five miles of Coolgreaney; speeches were made at enormous length, and the police did not know a word about the meeting, nor was there any police reporter present, and no report of our speeches was supplied to the Government. Perhaps the consequence was that I gave a freer play to my imagination than I am accustomed to do. After the meeting was over, in driving along the road to Coolgreaney, I passed 200 policemen marching out of Coolgreaney under the pleasing delusion that they had dispersed the meeting. We arrived at Coolgreaney at 5 o'clock, and then we held a meeting on the very spot where it was intended to take place originally. Now, why should the people of this country be asked to pay large sums of money for such tomfoolery as this? The attempt at suppressing that meeting probably cost the country £100, and this is all you got for it. You did not suppress the meeting, and you lost the valuable report which would have been placed in the archives of Dublin Castle by the police reporter, and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) has lost the pleasure of perusing. I am sorry for that, because I have some hopes of converting him even yet. The police found it impossible to suppress this meeting, because there was not even a child of 13 years who would not deceive them, and they could get no more information as to where we were, or what we were doing, than if they had been in France or Germany. They were driving about the country, and every child or woman they questioned sent them on a wrong road. Are these the men who are to constitute a force capable of suppressing murder? How are the Irish Constabulary to put down murder and moonlighting when things have been brought to such a pass in Ireland that it is considered a crime and an act of treachery to be seen talking to a policeman? The result of all these arrangements is, of course, that crime flourishes, and the police are hated; the Estimates grow and grow, and instead of getting any value for the money voted we only find that the

  1099
  country is going from bad to worse. Surely one would suppose that for a sum of £1,400,000 a-year the Government ought to be able to maintain law and order in Ireland. But what is the fact? Hon. Members of this House declare that there is no Government in Ireland at all. A remarkable letter from a noble Lord has recently appeared in the newspapers. He tells us that the Conservative Government, when they came into Office, declared that they would put down agitation in Ireland with a turn of their little finger, and the Government were at once to restore the authority of law and order, and to put an end for ever to the operations of the Plan of Campaign. It is declared that there is no Government at all in Ireland, and you are getting no value whatever for the £1,400,000 a-year you are spending on the Irish police. Now what might happen if you allow the Irish people to manage their own police? The Irish people would "run" them—as they say in America—for £400,000, and for that money they would maintain law and order in a very different fashion from the present. Under the existing system the expenditure must continue to increase, with worse and worse results. Then there is a third expense to which I wish to draw attention—namely, the charge for the protection of police reporters in Ireland. I estimate that during the last six years between £20,000 and £30,000 have been spent in collecting reports of probably 6,000 speeches; and I think it is about time for some Minister to get up and say what purpose, under the sun, he expects to gain by collecting those vast masses of speeches, since during the whole of these six years there has never been an attempt to use the speeches except in two well-known trials—in both of which the Government were signally defeated. If the Government have given up trials, why do they send large bodies of police to protect Government reporters? I have done everything in my power, although it is not always possible to do so, when the Government very prudently and wisely consider it necessary to send a body of armed men to protect their reporters. The people regard them as spies, and they will not allow them to go upon the platform. In every instance, when I have been present, I have invited them
  1100
  upon the platform when the people have allowed me to do so, because I have felt that the situation might otherwise be of a critical and dangerous character. The Government insist that these persons shall have the best place in front of the meeting. The people, however, regard them as spies, and the consequence is that they are compelled by force to thrust themselves into the middle of the meeting. I shall never forget the scene which I witnessed at Lough-rea. The Government, unfortunately, on that occasion did not send a sufficient body of men. They sent down some 20 armed men; but the committee would not allow their reporter to go on the platform, even at my request. The police thereupon insisted upon forcing their way to the front. There were at least 10,000 men assembled, and just before I began to speak somebody struck a constable or shoved him, and the police were immediately called upon to fix bayonets. Now, if one drop of blood had been shed on that occasion, I believe that not one of those policemen would have left that meeting alive, notwithstanding everything I could have done to protect them. If the Government had a really strong reason they might say—"We will run the risk of bloodshed, because what we are doing is necessary." But I do not know what interests the Government have to serve in reporting these speeches. They get full reports of them in the public papers, and their only object can be to have sworn reports for the purpose of trials, of which, however, I should think the Irish Secretary has had enough. Is it good value for money to vote large sums for a purpose which is fraught with the greatest danger to peace and order and a cause of insult and irritation to the people of Ireland? There never was—and the police, I believe, will bear out the statement—at any agrarian meeting the slightest cause for the presence of the police. There is no case on record where the peace has been broken, and none, as far as I know, in which injury has been done to property. I attended a meeting some time ago, to reach which I had to drive over one of the most frightful mountain roads it was ever my lot to travel over for a distance of 20 miles. At least 10,000 people were present, and the authorities, in order to protect their police reporter, were obliged

  1101
  to transport 150 police over that long mountain road at enormous cost, and with great exposure to the men, and all this for the purpose of getting a report of speeches which is never used. I have not the slightest doubt that the expenses to which the Government were put on that day alone amounted to £40. And what have you got for it? Like everything else in connection with the police, the proceedings of the authorities only tend to promote disorder and disaffection. Let the police perform their legitimate duty of detecting and punishing crime. Let them be employed to stop evictions rather than to carry them out. It is a curious thing that when I commenced this agitation last year, in company with my friend (Mr. O'Brien), we thought that under it we could reduce Ireland to order; and it is a curious fact that never in the whole history of the country have we passed through a period of such deep and wide-spread distress with such freedom from disorder and crime. At Christmas the Government commenced to suppress our meetings, and simultaneously with their action crime appeared, and there was an ebullition of lawlessness. As sure as you go on suppressing these meetings so surely will crime increase. I have myself denounced crime, and I have pointed out to the people that their condition will be a great deal better without crime. But it is not by denouncing crime that you will wean the Irish people from crime. Your first effort should be to get into the confidence of the people, and to do so you must convince them that you sympathize with their wrongs. It is not by denouncing crime, but it is by leading the people in better and more wise and more Christian roads that you can bring about an amelioration of their condition. The English people are denouncing crime. They have been doing so for 100 years, and what have they achieved? Nothing at all. You have tried suppression and denunciation of crime, and you have accomplished nothing. A good deal has been said about Boycotting. Well, perhaps I may be permitted to retain the conviction I have long since expressed, that if it comes to be a choice between murder and Boycotting, I prefer Boycotting. That is all I will state about Boycotting. If the Government are determined to pursue their present policy, and imagine that they
  1102
  are going to pacify Ireland and restore law and order by piling up the Police Estimates, they will have to make up their minds for a largely increased expenditure for the purpose. I am told that they have been keeping two constables parading every railway station in Ireland from morning to night, doing nothing except peeping into the railway carriages, in order to ascertain if I was there. I suppose there are not less than 1,000 policemen in Ireland at the present moment who have no business on earth except to peep into every railway train in order to see whether Mr. O'Brien or myself is travelling by it. I warn the Government that it is not by a Crimes' Act or the Constabulary Vote that they will manage to extract rents from the estates which have struck under the Plan of Campaign until you meet the people fairly.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has spoken, as he always does, with earnestness and ability. I have on this occasion to ask the indulgence of the House, because I am unfortunately suffering from illness; but I will do the best I can to answer the hon. Member, and I do not think my task will be a difficult one. Now, Sir, the hon. Member has commented upon the great cost of the Irish Constabulary, and he has asked us if we suppose that we will restore law and order in Ireland by merely piling up the Constabulary Estimates. The cost of the Constabulary is, I admit, very great; but that cost is a necessary element in the maintenance of law and order in Ireland. [Cries of "No!"] Yes, if law and order are to be maintained according to the modern standard of law and order, and not that standard which the hon. Member has thought fit to follow. But I quite admit that the hon. Member is right in supposing that we do not for a moment conceal our opinion that it is not merely by piling up the Constabulary Estimates that we can maintain law and order. That law and order is not maintained, at the present moment, as we wish; and the hon. Member knows—and the House knows—that as soon as we possibly can we shall apply for greater powers to enable it to be properly maintained. The hon. Member objects to this Vote for extra

  1103
  pay and allowances to the Constabulary by reason, as he says, that they have been incurred in respect of three heads—evictions, the suppression of public meetings, and the protection of police reporters. Sir, in the first place the hon. Member is absolutely incorrect in that statement. By far the greater part of the Vote—something like £20,000 in all—is due to the necessity for dealing by movements of the police with a matter which even the hon. Member and his Friends will admit it was necessary for the Government to deal—namely, the unfortunate riots in Belfast, and other disturbances at Parliamentary elections which occurred at the same time. There is, of course, a margin due to the causes to which the hon. Member refers, because in presenting these Estimates it was necessary to include every item of expenditure. The hon. Member charges us with the unnecessary use of the Police in maintaining the law on the occasion of evictions. Well, Sir, why was that necessary? For what reason, except for the agitation and the incitements used by the hon. Member and his Friends to the tenants not to pay their rents, who would otherwise have paid their rents, and to people to assemble in crowds to obstruct the execution of the law, who would not otherwise have thought of assembling. But for these reasons these things would not have happened. Every effort has been used by the hon. Member and his Friends to stir the people of Ireland to resistance to the law, and to obstruct the authorities in the execution of the law. The hon. Member has said—and his remark was cheered by some hon. Members opposite—that the events which occurred at the evictions are our fault, because we declined to alter the law. Then he went on to refer to a case which conclusively proves that his own argument is incorrect. What did he tell us with respect to Lord Clanriearde and the evictions at Woodford in the autumn? Did he tell us that the great cause of these evictions was the inability of the tenants to pay their rents? No, Sir; he made no such assertion. Did he tell us that when no rent was paid on that property it was due to the inability of the tenant to pay it? Not for a moment; but he did tell us that the refusal to pay rent was due to the disposition on the part of the tenants, which, I say, was fostered
  1104
  and encouraged, if not initiated, by the hon. Member himself and his Friends, to resist the payment of rent until certain evicted tenants were restored to their holdings. What would the passing of the Bill of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) last Session have done for such a case as that? Does the hon. Member mean to tell the House that if that Bill had been passed he would have desisted from advising the tenants who could pay their rents not to pay them? I thought we were asked to pass that Bill to relieve those who were unable to pay.
  MR. DILLON: What I said was, that I did not advise tenants to pay who were unable to pay without ruinously depriving themselves of what they required as the means of working their farms.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I think the hon. Member is not absolutely accurate in his recollection. I very much wish it were possible for hon. Members of this House to inquire carefully into this particular case at Woodford, for it cannot have been true to say of the tenants on that property to whom the hon. Members have referred that they were in that position. Beyond that it has never been alleged that these four persons, in whose evictions so large a sum was expended, declined to settle with the landlord, or his agent, because of their inability to pay. It was solely on account of a combination to set the law at defiance in that part of Ireland. I am bound to admit that the combination has brought that part of Ireland into a condition which is a disgrace to the civilization of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member refers to the large sum of £1,200 which is included in the Estimate for police protection on that occasion in respect of the Woodford Estate. That sum appears to me to be exorbitant to the last degree. The matter happened a few days after the assumption of Office by the present Government, and one of the first things I did was to inquire into the circumstances under which this large expenditure had been incurred, and to take steps which, I feel sure, will reduce similar expenditure in the future; but whatever expenditure has been incurred in such matters must be incurred rather than that the law should be defied. The hon. Member has also referred to the case of the

  1105
  Glenbeigh Estate, and also to the case of the Ballyferreter tenants; and anyone who has read or studied the statements which have been published with reference to the condition of the tenants on the Glenbeigh Estate—and that, unfortunately, is the condition of many tenants in that part of Ireland—would suppose that those evictions would have been stopped, or even delayed, by the passing of the Bill of the hon. Member for Cork. This question has already been discussed pretty fully in the House this Session, and I think it has been conclusively shown that such a supposition is altogether unfounded. I have again to say that the contention of the hon. Member that all this expenditure is due to the refusal of the House to alter the law as proposed by the hon. Member for Cork is absolutely baseless. Of course, I should not be in Order in discussing that proposal now; but I may say that if it had been adopted it would have put money into the hands of many men in Ireland who were able to pay their full rents to their landlords, and many of whom have since paid them, as the tenants in England and Scotland have done. The hon. Member went on to the second head of his indictment—the suppression of public meetings. The hon. Member charged us with having broken the law in order to suppress freedom of speech. According to the argument of the hon. Member, the Committee might be led to suppose that it is an every-day thing for Her Majesty's Government to prohibit public meetings in Ireland. [An hon. MEMBER: So it is.] Now, how many meetings does the House suppose have been actually prohibited during the last four months? Just eight only, four of which were on Sunday. That is a specimen of the facts from Ireland that are adduced here. We have not proclaimed meetings ad libitum. We do not claim, and we never have claimed, to possess any right whatever, as suggested below the Gangway, to put a stop to public meetings in Ireland. But we know very well that, as the law stands, we are bound to see whether there is anything about the meeting, either in its object or in its probable effect, which will justify the Government in taking special measures with regard to it. Now, Sir, what are the facts with regard to these meetings? The first meeting prohibited was one called at Sligo directly
  1106
  for the purpose of intimidating jurors in a forthcoming trial. That meeting was prevented; but Mr. O'Brien visited Sligo, and pursued a course which he has followed on other occasions. It has been a favourite pastime with the hon. Gentleman and some of his Friends, when a meeting has been prohibited, to make excursions, sometimes in cars, sometimes on horseback, sometimes by train, and sometimes aquatic excursions, in order to hold meetings, not in the places where they have been prohibited, but wherever they can get a score of people on whom they may come unexpectedly, and to whom they address themselves in the absence of the police; and these meetings are, more or less, accurately reported in the Press the next day. With regard to the case of Sligo, I remember seeing a glowing account in The Freeman's Journal of the way in which the Proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant had been evaded, and it might be supposed that everything which was prohibited had been done. The fact was that Mr. O'Brien and one or two others slipped out of the back-yard in the middle of the night and drove on a car n distance of 15 miles, and then, getting a few persons together next morning, they delivered certain speeches which were more or less accurately reported on the following day. Another meeting was prohibited which was called ostensibly for the same object—the intimidation of jurors. The meeting supposed to be held was, I believe, a bogus meeting; no attempt was ever made to hold it. Two other meetings were prohibited—one at Loughrea and the other at Rosslea. Both of those meetings were called a day or two before the time which the Sheriff had fixed to carry out certain evictions. Informations were sworn that if those meetings were held the result would certainly be incitement to resistance to the execution of the law. That, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, was a sufficient reason for the prohibition of the meeting. Another of these meetings did take place, like the meeting at Sligo, by the hon. Member and his Friends holding it in some unexpected place; but none has been held in the place where it had been proclaimed. Other meetings have been summoned—like that at Coolgreaney, to which the hon. Member has referred—by a placard giving the information that it

  1107
  was intended to hold a meeting to promote the Irish National cause. Well, Sir, the Irish National cause may be promoted in various ways, according to the views of hon. Members who call themselves the Irish National Party. It has been promoted in past times by weapons which. I do not for a moment charge hon. Members opposite with using, but which have been very vividly pourtrayed in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). It has been promoted by misguided men by means of dynamite, assassination, and things of that kind. It has also been attempted to be promoted by Constitutional agitation such as that used by the late Mr. Butt, and against which I have not a word to say. Nor would I have any word to say against hon. Members below the Gangway opposite if all their agitation had been Constitutional agitation. Again, it has been attempted to be promoted by the Plan of Campaign, or, in other words, by an organized system of robbery.
  MR. DILLON: Mr. Courtney, inasmuch as I am one of those who conducted the Plan of Campaign, I ask you whether the right hon. Baronet is in Order in alluding to it as an organized system of robbery?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Baronet has not imputed to the hon. Member that he has organized robbery.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I am surprised at the interruption of the hon. Member, because I understand that a jury in Dublin recently disagreed in a certain case that was before it, some of the members of that jury having declined to believe the hon. Member's own statement that he was concerned in the Plan of Campaign. Sir, that is my description of the Plan of Campaign, whoever may have been concerned in it, and I am bound to say that when the Plan of Campaign has been adopted on an estate the Government have a very difficult task before them in deciding on the course to pursue with reference to meetings called on that estate for the promotion of the Plan of Campaign. Now, what was the case in reference to the Coolgreaney meeting? There was an estate of no large extent where there was no pretence that the rents were exorbitant; where the relations of landlord and tenant had been excellent for
  1108
  years, and were admitted to be so on the part of those who spoke on behalf of the tenants themselves. The landlord not long ago appointed an agent who was obnoxious to the hon. Member and his Friends. The Plan of Campaign was consequently adopted on that estate; the tenants declined to pay their rents, except on a certain reduction fixed by themselves; auctions of their stock were held, and all the means of the Plan of Campaign for defeating the just rights of the landlord were adopted, and then last Sunday a meeting was held, nominally to promote the National cause in Ireland, but really to force the tenants to adhere to the Plan of Campaign. I was asked a Question to-day upon the subject, and I think some hon. Members received with doubt my statement as to forcing the tenants to adhere to the Plan of Campaign. I should be very sorry to attach too much credence to anything that may appear in the newspapers on this subject; but I did see a statement in a newspaper that in the course of certain evictions, as to which I was asked a Question this evening, on that estate the wife of one of the tenants actually had a purse in her hand, which she held out to the agent, offering him the rent; but the local priest, who took a leading part in promoting the Plan of Campaign, pulled the purse out of her hand, and prevented her from paying her rent. This meeting was called last Sunday for forcing the Plan of Campaign upon those tenants. It was called at a time when evictions were pending on that property. It was, in the opinion of the Government—an opinion based on sworn information—calculated to lead to resistance to the enforcement of the law. The Government proclaimed the meeting. Again, the hon. Member and his Friends, by the system I have described, of driving about the country to places four, five, and eight miles off, contrived to address a few small assemblies. [Cries of "Oh! "] Yes; and of course Members present at the meetings were greatly exaggerated the next day. The hon. Member stated that a meeting was held at Coolgreaney. That was not so.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman must excuse me. I was present and spoke at that meeting.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: That was not so.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: I rise to Order, Mr. Courtney.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Sir Michael Hicks-Beach will explain.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I do not mean to question the word of the hon. Member; but what happened was this. A platform had been erected in a certain part of the town, where a meeting was announced to be held. No meeting was held there; but in the evening a few persons—among them, possibly, the hon. Member—did attempt to make speeches in another part of the town.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: It was in the centre of the town.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: But they were at once dispersed by the police; and that was the result of the Coolgreaney meeting. Sir, I do not mean to say, or for a moment to ask the Committee to consider, that the state of affairs which I have described is a satisfactory state of affairs; very much the contrary. All I have to say with regard to it is this—that believing, as we do, that the meetings to which I have alluded, and which, I may again remind the Committee, have only, in all, been eight in number, were held for purposes that would lead to breaches of the law, we deemed it our duty to prohibit their being held, and to do our best to enforce that prohibition. The hon. Member says that we have failed in this matter. Well, Sir, I admit that if we had powers which would enable us, not to interfere so much with those meetings, but to bring to justice the persons who use meetings of this kind to incite people to breaches of the law, then we should deal with the matter more efficiently than we are at present able to do. The hon. Member says—"Give us the police, and we will maintain law and order in Ireland at a cost of £400,000, instead of £1,350,000." How will they maintain law and order? [An hon. MEMBER: By putting a stop to jury packing.] Will they do it by abolishing property in Ireland? It is our duty, and the duty of any Government in this country, to maintain law and order in Ireland as it has always been interpreted in this House of Commons; and when the hon. Member asks me, in the third count of his indictment, why we sent police to protect the Government reporters at
  1110
  these meetings that were held, and why those reporters are sent, I will tell him that it is—as he has himself admitted to have some tangible evidence of the speeches made on those occasions—in order to use that evidence for the purpose of prosecution if required. The hon. Member says—" What is the good of this? You will never be able to get a conviction." But, Sir, we intend to ask this House to make such changes in the law as will make it possible to get a conviction where an offence has been committed. [Cries of "Right or Wrong!"] No; not right or wrong. I will venture to say that anybody who watches the course of the Assizes at present going on in Ireland—anybody who watches them fairly, who sees the way in which, from day to day, courses involving no political issues, courses involving nothing but ordinary crime, are dealt with by juries in more than one county in Ireland—will be bound to admit, if he considers it fairly, that a change in the law is not required to secure a conviction, whether right or wrong, but that a change is required to secure that justice shall be done. I am afraid I cannot ask the Committee to listen to me longer. I have said that I am speaking under very great difficulties. I only wish, in conclusion, to protest as strongly as I can against the doctrine of resistance to the law, which has been preached to-night by the hon. Member—"If you will not alter the law as we choose, then we will not obey it." That is the doctrine which the hon. Member has preached in this House to-night.
  MR. DILLON: I rise to say, Sir, that I preached no such doctrine. I said that if the Government break the law in prohibiting public meetings, we will hold the meetings in spite of them.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Then the hon. Member says the Government have broken the law; but he has made no attempt whatever to prove that. That was attempted to be proved in the Debate upon the Address, initiated by the hon. Member for Cork; but the House declined, by a large majority, to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Front Opposition Bench; and those sitting behind them, although they supported the Amendment, never charged the Government with having broken the law. If the hon. Member and his

  1111
  Friends think that we have broken the law, let them bring this matter before the House, and specify how and where and in what manner we have done so. I maintain that we have, in fact, been careful to avoid straining it, and hare never interfered with a public meeting except where there was something illegal in its purpose or in its objects, or when there was reason to apprehend a breach of the law. Again, I say if the speech of the hon. Member is not an incitement to resist the law, if it be not altered as he may desire it, then I do not know what principle underlies it, or what its effect may be on the country. I leave it to the judgment of this House and of the country. I believe it is only an additional proof of the absolute necessity which exists that, if order is to be restored in Ireland, further powers must be conferred upon the Executive.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), in the concluding observations he addressed to the House, has given to his followers and the country at large an assurance that at all events, if it be possible, he will without delay recur to the policy with which we are already very familiar in Ireland. It is quite evident, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that to such an extent as he can obtain powers from this House he is determined to make it hot for the Irish Party in future. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, however, that with the granting of powers to him by this House his difficulties will by no means cease. He is going to enter upon a policy which has been tried before and has failed; and I can tell him that no Predecessor of his occupying the position of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant ever yet engaged in the task with less cause to cry out than the right hon. Gentleman himself. I should have thought that with the knowledge he has of the country and the information he relies on as part and parcel of that knowledge, and which he has obtained from the police in regard to the suppression of public meetings in Ireland, he must have been aware that he was in no degree superior to those of his Predecessors who have tried the same policy and have failed in their endeavours to carry it out. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the Plan of
  1112
  Campaign as "organized robbery." I should like to know how the right hon. Gentleman would wish us to apply the same term to the policy which he himself has been carrying out in Ireland during the last three or four months? What is the difference in the Plan of Campaign as it affects the landlords and the policy of pressure—always, of course, within the law—which the right hon. Gentleman has been actively carrying out with the assistance of his subordinates in the Irish Office. Many instances might be cited of the pressure which has been brought to bear upon the landlords. Captain Plunkett, one of the subordinates of the right hon. Gentleman, frankly confesses that he has brought such pressure to bear even in cases where he was wholly unacquainted with the circumstances of the tenant and the justice of the landlord's demand. Surely that is a policy to which this expression of "organized robbery" may be applied with much more force and truth than anything that has been carried out in the Plan of Campaign. The right hon. Gentleman has wasted a good deal of the time of the House in an endeavour to show that the difficulties in Glenbeigh would not have been met by the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). But what would have been met by it if that Bill had been accepted is this—the Plan of Campaign would have been unnecessary, and all the difficulties for which the right hon. Gentleman appeals to the House to extend him their sympathy, all the troubles which have occurred, and all this useless expenditure of public money would have been obviated. I maintain that it would have been much wiser, even to the Irish landlords themselves, to have accepted the Bill of the hon. Member for Cork than to bring the unfortunate pressure of the Government to bear upon them and bring about the Plan of Campaign. I do not admit the right of the right hon. Gentleman to lecture us as to our policy. I say that we admire good laws as much as he does, much as he desires to see the law maintained and respected; but it is our interest and that of the people we represent to see that the law is just and equitable. We do not complain that Her Majesty's Government should call in the assistance of the police in carrying out evictions in Ireland if their only desire is to use them for the

  1113
  prevention of disturbance, where disturbances are likely to take place; but what we do complain of is that the Government maintain in Ireland at an enormous expense a police force which is practically an army of occupation, and that they maintain it for the single purpose only of protecting the landlords in their unjust exactions upon the Irish tenants. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the case of the evicted tenants on the estate of Lord Clanricarde at Woodford, and he has said that since resistance was organized the whole of that district of country has become lawless. Now, long before there was this resistance in Woodford the district was in a state of lawlessness and disorder far greater than that which has characterized it since. Long before the Plan of Compaign was thought of lawlessness was created by Lord Clanricarde, who has never seen one of his tenants, who has refused them a site for a church or a school, and who has steadily refused to extend to them a hand of sympathy. I must congratulate Her Majesty's Government that it was to enforce the rights of Lord Clanricarde that they first exercised the powers they were invested with when they took charge of the Government of Ireland. I think we have a right to complain that all this expenditure of the public money should have been had recourse to by the Government solely for the purpose of assisting the Irish landlords in carrying out their unjust exactions upon the Irish tenants. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that in order to evict four families on the estate of Lord Clanricarde it has cost the country a sum of £1,372. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary confessed in his Bristol speech that he was doing all he could to bring pressure—of course within the law—but, nevertheless, to bring pressure to bear upon the Irish landlords; but the very moment the same kind of pressure is brought to bear upon them by those who have much greater interests in the country than he can have, he has nothing for them but prosecution and imprisonment. Recently the Government made the most shameful effort ever made by an Irish Government to pack a jury, and to place in the box those who were the sworn enemies of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), whom it
  1114
  was my high privilege to defend on his trial; the Government in the most shameful manner pressed these men into the box, and endeavoured to extort from them a verdict of guilty against my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman, so far from being ashamed of that policy or regretting it in the least degree, has the coolness to stand up in this House this evening and defend it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The remarks of the hon. Member are altogether out of Order. He must connect his observations with the Vote for the Irish Constabulary.
  Ms. T. C. HARRINGTON: I was merely endeavouring to reply to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. However, I will obey your ruling, and I will not pursue that line of argument further. Now, Sir, it is not with the employment of the police for the maintenance of law and order in Ireland that we have any fault to find. It is not for the just exercise of any powers conferred on the Irish Executive that we have any quarrel whatsoever. What we complain of is this—that the whole system of police and the whole of the jury system in Ireland is administered for one class and one interest, to the detriment of every other class and interest. No doubt we have had decisions of Judges in Ireland in support of the system, and frequent imprisonments for contempt of Court; but the whole policy of the Irish Executive has been to bolster up this one class and interest, even at the risk of sacrificing the lives of the unfortunate people. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the evictions at Glenbeigh. With the history of those evictions the House is familiar. No doubt the Sheriff had a right to demand all the assistance that was necessary to enable him to discharge his duty; but what I complain of is that the Irish Constabulary should have been placed at his disposal for the purpose of enabling him to level and burn down the houses of the Irish peasantry. How can you expect the people of Ireland to respect the law so long as the officers of the law are employed and paid for such purposes as that? The right hon. Gentleman has said that during the recent agitation all the meetings that were suppressed in four months were only eight. I fail to see why the right

  1115
  hon. Gentleman should take a period of four months. What we complain of is that the Government, not during a period of four months, but now, are entering on a policy of the indiscriminate suppression of public meetings, and that a mere suspicion in the mind of an official of Dublin Castle, who possesses no acquaintance with the locality concerned, that a meeting may be used for an unlawful purpose is quite sufficient to deprive the people of their right of public meeting. If the police reporters are as useful a machinery as the right hon. Gentleman thinks they are, would it not be better to allow the meetings to go on, to assure himself that they were used for promoting illegal objects and purposes, and then to put the law in force. With regard to the meeting at Sligo, I observed that the right hon. Gentleman carefully passed over altogether the suppression of that meeting. There was a Proclamation by the authorities prohibiting a meeting which was proposed to be held on a Sunday. At night some of the townspeople convened a meeting within doors, and as the people were entering they were set upon by the police and knocked down with bâtons. We deny that the meeting at Sligo was convened for the purpose of intimidating the jurors; but we assert that it was called for the purpose of protesting against a packed jury panel. The Chief Secretary has threatened us with coercion. That threat has no terror for me. It is our duty to protect the rights of the people, and we shall continue, within the law if we can, but without the law if necessary, to maintain those rights.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said that he will do all he can to preserve law and order in Ireland according to his standard. That is, I suppose, according to the English standard. There is a different standard among us in Ireland, because we believe that law and order can be in the truest sense maintained in Ireland by abolishing the system of landlordism which has been so great a disgrace to the country. I believe we are satisfied that law and order can never be permanently secured in Ireland by any other means; and our conception of law and order is, I think, infinitely higher, truer, and deeper than
  1116
  that of the right hon. Gentleman. It is rather to be regretted that we have not all the particulars of this Vote set down in the Estimates. Why should we not have exactly, in black and white, how much money has been spent in suppressing meetings; how much in putting down riots; and how much more in election disturbances. Why have we not the items clearly given under the various sub-heads. I think it is most objectionable and most unreasonable that the Committee should be asked to vote a sum of £30,000, with no specific account of the purposes to which the money has been applied. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the presence of police reporters at public meetings. In going about England I have found no argument more potent in showing the difference in the way in which we are governed in Ireland, and the way in which you are governed in England, than the mere mention of the facts connected with the Government reporters, and by drawing attention to the circumstance that the Constabulary are employed in force to guard them, with the sole object of enabling the Government to pounce down on hon. Members of this House afterwards, and prosecuting them for the words they may use. Such a fact as that is a sufficient proof of the disgraceful way in which the people of Ireland are governed. I have sometimes thought it might be the duty of the Representatives of Irish constituencies to protest solemnly, openly and publicly, at such meetings against this system, whatever the consequences might be. I am sure they would be supported by the mass of the people of this country, who would never tolerate, for a day, the system which has been adopted in Ireland. Then, again, in regard to the suppression of meetings, the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. T. C. Harrington) has pointed out the misleading character of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman on that point. The right hon. Gentleman has said that only eight meetings have been suppressed in four months. That may be so; but our complaint is this. At the beginning of the four months the Government themselves were bringing pressure—within the law—to bear upon the landlords, and therefore they were not likely to suppress any public meetings. Our objection is that meetings are now

  1117
  being suppressed, and that a different policy altogether is being pursued. It is no answer to our complaint to tell us that only eight meetings have been suppressed in four months. The right hon. Gentleman threatens us with what he intends to do when an alteration of the law, which he hopes to make, shall have been brought about. I am glad that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has brought out the right hon. Gentleman's purpose in its true character. We now know that, if he can effect it, trial by jury in Ireland is to be abolished. We know what he has foreshadowed; but I think he has very much mistaken the character of those who have been engaged in this agitation, and who have devoted their days and nights to an effort to defend the rights of the Irish tenants from the exactions of cruel landlords. They have not been afraid to face imprisonment, and they would face it again to-morrow if they believed it to be necessary for the protection of the poor people who have been entrusted to their care. The right hon. Gentleman is very much mistaken, and curiously misreads history, if he thinks that anything he can do will terrorize my hon. Friends. They will continue to go on as they have done. There is only one thing the Government can do which would change all this, and restore order, peace, and goodwill in Ireland, and that is, not a policy of oppression, but a policy of conciliation. Adopt a policy of conciliation, and all this expenditure for extra pay and allowances to the police, so far as it is used in suppressing public meetings, employing Government reporters, and attempting to crush popular movements in Ireland, will be absolutely unnecessary and will cease. The result of all this will be certain. The Irish people are determined to be free. They are determined to associate freedom of speech and action, and should the attempts to suppress it for a time be successful, there will always arise a new set of politicians from the ashes of the present to continue the struggle as long as it may be necessary to secure the independence and self - government of Ireland.
  MR. BLANE: I have been much surprised to hear it said to-night that the first duty of Government was the protection of the rights of
  1118
  property, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland must have read his political economy backwards; because I have always understood that the first duty of Government is the protection of the rights and lives of the people. My hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Mayo (Mr. Dillon) took part in the defence of the people, because the Government are wielding the rights of the Crown against the people. We are not sent here to protect the rights of the Crown; we are sent to this House to protect the rights of the people. The Crown may pass away, but the rights of the people stand for ever; the rights of the people and the lives of the people cannot be dissociated. This Constabulary Force is only kept up for the purpose of maintaining the rights of property, as it is called; in Ireland it is maintained for the assistance of the landlords, but the burden of it is thrown upon the occupiers. You say that these latter have no stake in the country; but if a man has no stake in the country he has no property to defend, and he ought not to be called upon to support this Police Force. I understand that the people of England pay half the cost of the police in Ireland. [An hon. MEMBER: The whole.] If they pay the whole, so much the worse for them. I am glad to hear that, however, because the Police Force is not for the benefit of the people of Ireland. It is not subject to any municipal authority. As I understand, the Lord Mayor of Dublin has not the power to remove a single policeman who might refuse to obey his orders. I say that the people of Ireland should have control of the force for the preservation of order, and it is because they have not that power that in Ireland so much disorder exists. To speak of men armed with rifles and swords as a civil force is a waste of words; it is a military force, and we do not require it. In London I have never seen a policeman with a sword at his side and a bayonet in his hand; but you will, in Ireland, see two policemen armed with rifles and bayonets at the side of every man who is sent to prison; and it is the same in the case of women; the police have their 20 rounds of ammunition, rifle, swords, and bayonets. As I have said, although the people of England are good enough to pay for this Police Force, we are willing

  1119
  to pay for a Police Force ourselves; but it must be a civil and not a military force.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is not in Order to discuss the general question of police in Ireland. The hon. Member must confine himself to the specific items under discussion.
  MR. BLANE: This Vote of £30,000 includes travelling expenses and other charges connected with matters that have recently come under our notice in Ireland. As one who has taken some part in. this movement, I am able to say that those who were associated with me have given as little cause for these extra police as possible. The sum expended in my district was altogether unnecessary; if the authorities at the Castle move their rifles and bayonets from one part of Ireland to another, I must say that I have no connection with it. We have no control over the Police Force, and therefore I contend that we ought not to be called upon to pay for this.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is again entering on the general question, and it is my duty to tell him that he is out of Order in so doing.
  MR. BLANE: We have here, in addition to the original Estimate, the sum of £11,160 asked for. I say that this sum would be altogether unnecessary if the police in Ireland were subject to municipal authority, and if the statements of the Representatives of the people in this House received the attention which they deserve from the Ministers of the Crown. We submit that this Vote is altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as the vast number of Constabulary men taken from one place to another in Ireland would not be required if the control of the force were in the hands of the municipalities. It is so in this country, and in all civilized countries; but it is not so in Ireland, because the Police Force there is used against the people, and they ought not to be called on to pay for it. I thank the Committee for the patience with which they have listened to the observations which I have felt it my duty to make on this Vote.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I should not have taken part in this discussion, but for an extraordinary remark of the hon. Member who has just sat down. He informed the House that the English people
  1120
  bear the whole cost of the Constabulary in Ireland. I would remind the Committee that the question has been, before this House of the Limerick Corporation refusing to pay the sum at which they have been assessed on this account.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is out of Order in referring to that circumstance in connection with the Vote before the Committee.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I think it is unfair on the part of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Blane) to say that the police in Ireland are used simply and solely for the protection of the rich in Ireland and the rights of property. The Constabulary in Ireland, during the last six years, have had very serious and laborious work to do in protecting the lives, not only of landlords, but of the tenant farmers who have been subject to the direst persecution. For all that, they have not been able to protect the lives of such unfortunate men as we read were the other day shot at and left bleeding to death.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is pursuing a general argument not proper to the Question before the Committee. He must confine his remarks to the specific Question of the Vote and the subjects connected with it.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I apologize, Mr. Courtney, for straying from the immediate Question, and will say no more than that it is unfair to allege that the police in Ireland have been employed solely for the protection of landlords in Ireland.
  MR. HAYDEN: This Vote is not, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite asserts, intended to pay for the protection of the lives of the humbler class, but for the carrying out of evictions and putting down meetings, and these expenses would not be necessary if the landlords had fixed the rents at a reasonable rate. I say that it is not fair that the people of England and Ireland should have to pay an extra sum for police in order to enable landlords to impose rents which the Commissioners have declared to be 60 per cent above what they ought to be; and I do not think it is a fair representation to say that the police to any great extent are required to protect the lives of tenant farmers in Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine his observations to the sum asked for, and the objects for which it is required.
  MR. HAYDEN: I was under the impression that this sum was asked for the extra expense of police attending meetings in Ireland. I regret that I have been out of Order, and shall not, of course, continue my remarks any further than to repeat my belief that if the landlords had treated their tenants fairly, this extra sum for police would not have been required.
  MR. EDWABD HARRINGTON: While the hon. Member who introduced this Motion was speaking, I made a calculation with reference to the work of the police in Ireland. I find that, allowing to the Sheriff 250 working days in the year, you have, according to the Vote presented to-night, 1,150 policemen in Ireland continually engaged in the work of these evictions. These men get 3s. 6d. a day for extra work in connection with evictions and riots. What is the duty of these policemen? I was born in Ireland, and I have had reason frequently to watch with interest some of the actions and evolutions of Irish policemen. Their work has been justly described, in ordinary times, as "just getting the lime of the barrack wall on their coats and going in to brush it off again." That is the ordinary employment of a policeman in Ireland. You maintain him in idleness, and when you put upon him a duty which is to him ordinary recreative exercise you pay him 3s. 6d. extra a-day. More than that, you provide cars for them when they go to evictions. Why, Sir, it is jollity to them to go to evictions. I have been to many such scenes, and what have I seen? I have seen these policemen in long cars, and have heard them, when coming back from an eviction, singing in chorus, "Wait till the clouds roll by." It seems to me that these policemen were, in a great measure, carrying out the spirited policy of Her Majesty's Government, who are going on with a discussion in this House which will be of no value, and who apparently are waiting until the clouds pass over. It is to me absurd to have in Ireland a force which exists only for the special purpose of this work. I say it is manifestly unfair that you should give them
  1122
  3s. 6d. a-day and their expenses besides. The police do not perform a single civil work in Ireland, except this work of collecting rents for the landlords. Will any hon. Gentleman who has visited Ireland during the last few months, while this charge has been accumulating, say that in a single instance he has seen policemen performing the ordinary functions which a policeman in England performs? No; the proper work of the police is neglected in Ireland, and we are told that the police are there because the rights of property must be maintained. You should lay the venue properly, and say where the rights of property really lie. Let it not be the property of a dominant faction, but let it be the property of the people, and then I will say let the rights of property be maintained. It may interest this House very much, and particularly hon. Members opposite, who will, of course, vote against any reduction of this Vote which may be moved on these Benches, to know what sort of duties the police in Ireland have been performing for the last two months which have occasioned this Vote. I saw this duty myself; I saw it being performed about a month ago. I went into the Glenbeigh district when the evictions were being carried out there; I went into that lonely and barren valley, where the people were being evicted from the homes which their families had occupied for generations; I saw the smoke curling and rising from that valley. On that day there were five cabins of the evicted people of the district smouldering, and 135 policemen paid by the taxation of the nation—paid by that mysterious person called the British taxpayer, who is so generous to us—135 policemen were present to protect the man who was burning the roof-trees of the people over their heads. You quarrel with our words in this House; but with these naked walls and these figures before us, it is hard to speak calmly of the grievances of our people. I should not object when an officer of the law, who is sent on a mission of the law, is protected by police, and even, if necessary, by a military force; I should not object to the Sheriff having a force of policemen, and I should not object to their being paid extra wages, or to the extra expense of cars for their conveyance; but I do object that the work of the Sheriff,

  1123
  which is done at the expense of the nation—at the expense of the British people, who are not aware of what it is—should be prolonged for three weeks, in order that it may furnish a hideous spectacle to a disgusted world. [Laughter.] I do not envy the feelings of the man who can laugh at the scenes I have feebly depicted. I shall now give a further instance of the misuse of the police force in Ireland, and I shall use it to back up our appeal for the reduction of this Vote. At one of the first evictions, I wanted to test the question as to whether or not the police force were present to protect the officers of the law in their duty; I approached the Resident Magistrate, and drew attention to the facts; I said—"That old man is evicted; his widowed daughter and grandchild are out; the law has been enforced, the Sheriff has done his work, and will you take the responsibility of keeping that large force of police idle here, while merely the vindictiveness of the land agent is carried out?" In a few courteous words I was told to mind my own business. He told me that, not because it was a pleasure to him, for he was as disgusted with the work as I was; he was disgusted that a Resident Magistrate, with two officers of Constabulary and 135 men, should stand there till the cabin which had held this old man of 85, his widowed daughter and grandchild, and which had sheltered three generations of his family, was in ruins, in order to satisfy this craving for the respect of law and order in Ireland. The Sheriff was disgusted with this work, and, when he had concluded it, he insisted on going home; but the work of the land agent had not been completed. There were 135 policemen there; yet, when the Sheriff asked for a force to protect him on his way home, he could not get it. Ostensibly, you bring out the police force to protect the Sheriff; but here is the test of that profession, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary can examine it, and ascertain the truth in the matter. The Sheriff asked for a police force to protect him on his way home; he could not get that force. He put the question to the test, and walked off on his way home. What happened? Only four policemen were sent to protect him, but 135 men were retained to protect the vindictive agent; and when the Sheriff was a few fields
  1124
  off, the danger of letting him go away thus was seen, and one of the Constabulary officers, who probably got 10 s. 6d. a-day extra, whistles to his men, orders them to stand, and, to my own knowledge, the Sheriff was kept practically under arrest until the agent had completed his work. Is not that a misuse of the money which this House is voting away for extra police in Ireland? It was recently laid down by high authority that that officer carries Her Majesty's commands, and, therefore, he should be protected. In this case the Sheriff, who carried the decrees of Her Majesty's Court, and who was in that glen Her Majesty's representative, was allowed to go away with an insufficient force for his protection; and then practically detained under arrest, and made to act the subaltern part to a man who was only carrying out private vengeance. This is a misuse of the money we are ked to vote to-night; nay, more, I really believe that if, as I think we might reasonably claim and expect that English Members would, at least, sit in this House and hear what we have to say, and weigh our words thoroughly in their minds, as they weigh the words uttered on every other subject but this one of the government of Ireland—if the people of England could hear what we say, I believe that not one penny of this Vote would ever be passed by this Parliament. Now, Sir, there is more to complain of; the police in Ireland are taught that their jolliest and gayest time is the time of the misery and the trouble and the travail of our people. For what is called eviction duty an Irish policeman, as I have said, gets 3s. 66. a-day extra. As there is no danger to his life or limb, will anyone tell me that the 135 men of stalwart build were in any danger in that glen? I doubt that there were as many men, women, and children there as policemen. Naturally enough, the constable that is called to eviction duty looks forward to it with joyful anticipation. I was at an eviction in the county of Limerick, within the last few months, and saw one constable getting 3s. 6d. for the amusement of evicting his own father. Such is the way in which you misuse the force, demoralize what would be a noble force and a credit to the country, if you utilized them properly. Such is the way in which you misuse the force, that the men look with

  1125
  joyous anticipations to evictions, and to any other disturbances. They incur no danger; but they get a day's outing, all expenses paid, and 3s. 6d. a-day for pocket money. Now, Sir, this sort of training for the police begets only a feeling that might naturally be supposed to be begat in human beings; because even the Irish police are human. I was a witness of a disgraceful exhibition of bravery on the part of these Irish policemen to whom we are expected to pay 3s. 6d. a-day for their work in Glen-beigh. For three weeks these policemen were maintained there; for three weeks they were engaged upon work which I maintain, could have been carried out by the Sheriff in two days, at a commensurately less expense, if you would not associate with it the work of the vindictive policy for which you—Her Majesty's Government—are mainly responsible. These policemen were coming home from some evictions; there was a river to cross; naturally enough, the people of the country did not look with any affectionate regard upon the force that was carrying out evictions in their midst, and several young boys ran into the stream and tumbled off the stepping stones, so as to have a little jolly revenge, and make the constables walk through the river. I do not think that any Englishman has the self-conscious dignity of an Irish policeman. I do not think that if as great disrespect had been shown to any Member of Her Majesty's Government, or even to a Royal person, any more indignant feelings could have been excited than were excited in these constables by the fact that they had to wet their ankles in the stream. What happened? Why, the few of us who were favoured spectators got a safe passage across; and the policemen were so chagrined at this, and at their having to walk through the stream, that they, without any other provocation, pushed into the crowd of little girls and boys who were standing on the brink of the river, and, shouting and laughing, punched and pummelled them unmercifully, leaving one young girl almost dead. It is for such services that you ask the Committee for this Vote. But it is not by pounds we measure the importance of this Vote; but by the bitter feelings you have engrafted in our nature by these acts, which you have asked us here to-night to pay for. You allow
  1126
  your police in Ireland to do this shameful work for months together, and then you ask us to pay for it. Was there ever such a satire of civilized government? We have been told that this expenditure was not all incurred within the last few months, and not all incurred in connection with evictions. We are told that it was incurred in expenses consequent upon the Irish Elections. Why, what were the expenses connected with the Irish Elections? In the county, one division of which I have the honour to represent, we went in a four-in-hand, and no one opposed us; and why, because we thoroughly represent the feelings of the people in that demand the denial of which occasions this Vote. There practically was, at the last Election, no opposition. There were a comparatively few contests in any part of Ireland, and therefore there could have been but a very insignificant portion of this money expended on the Elections. But then, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland puts in another plea, and that is that some money was expended in connection with the Belfast riots. I really think that the right hon. Gentleman would do well not to open his lips on that subject. Members of Her Majesty's present Administration ought to speak with a conscious blush of the Belfast riots, knowing well that prominent Members of their Party had, in the first instance, fomented those riots. We, in Ireland, do not want sectarian quarrels. We who have lived in the South of Ireland, where we Catholics are in the vast majority, have no differences with our political opponents. If they were asked whether they suffered any inconvenience by the conduct we pursued, I am quite confident they would answer, No. The disturbances in Belfast were undoubtedly fomented by Englishmen in order that you might have an excuse for reverting to the old policy of coercion. The object of interested parties was to keep the Catholics and the Protestants at daggers drawn, and, naturally, there were fights and quarrels and disturbances. But how did you act towards them? Large bodies of these police, whose pay we are asked here to-night to vote, were drafted into the district; but they were not allowed to quell the riots. The magistrates of the district, who were all notorious partizans, practically bound the hands of

  1127
  the policemen, just as practically, in fact, as if they took the handcuffs out of their pockets and put them upon the wrists of the men. The magistrates kept the policemen there as idle spectators of the disorder which continued for weeks disgracing that thriving and beautiful city, which would be a credit to our country if disorder were not continually fomented by interested parties inside and out. These are some of the duties in which the police have been engaged for the last few months, and it is for these duties we are asked to pay. When the Royal Commission, appointed to inquire into the origin of the Belfast riots, made certain recommendations affecting the police force in Ireland, and affecting their re-constitution, did Her Majesty's Government proceed to act? What have we foreshadowed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland? Does he act on the recommendation of the Commission, which shows how disorder and disturbances can be averted in that city in the future? Did they act on the recommendation of Her Majesty's Commission, which has shown what are the causes of the employment of these police in Ireland in the last few months? Oh, no, they do not; but to a full House tonight, and to interested spectators in a distinguished quarter of the House, Her Majesty's Minister makes a brave boast that there must be more coercion of unarmed and defenceless people, more bayonetting, more drastic law in order to force law and order down the throats of the Irish people. In the presence of Her Majesty's Minister, and in the presence of this country, and in the presence of a hostile Parliament we, in the name of our people, defy you. We do not defy law and order; we want law; but we want law based on the will of the people as it should be in every civilized land. We want that order that arises naturally from the loyal obedience to that law. That is the law and order we want, and believe me, if you proceed in the line I have indicated, you will not want 14,000 armed policemen in Ireland to maintain law and order. If you will permit me, Sir, I will illustrate, by the comparison of the small number of policemen required to maintain the peace in a large district in England, what will be the normal condition of Ireland in what I hope will be the
  1128
  near future, if you will only meet the views half-way which we put forward. Let not hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite always believe that in every word we utter we are actuated by one political impulse. Of course, I should never have them forget that there is one sentiment always pervading our minds and actions; but let them not believe that we pervert our minds on account of our opinion. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary say here to-night? He made certain observations with regard to meetings which were instantly contradicted by an hon. Friend of mine. Now, I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman that, to my own knowledge, many statements that he has to make on this question, and this extra police question, are as remote from the truth as the darker regions are from heaven. I make no personal reflection upon the right hon. Gentleman, or with the person with whom he is in immediate communication, but his information has to come through such a succession of filters that every particle of truth is taken out of the honest statement which should be made in this House. The right hon. Gentleman answered a Question put to him the other evening by an Irish Member about which I knew nothing, but which affected my constituency. It is pertinent to this matter, and that is the reason why I mention it. It concerns a man named Patrick Ferriter, who was sentenced to two months' imprisonment for having at a meeting I addressed, and which was presided over by the Ven. Canon O'Sullivan, called out to the Government reporter—"Take that down, Stringer." This matter was referred to here tonight. I was very much interested by the reference which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) to the position which these policemen on extra duty occupy in the crowd at Irish meetings. I presume the right hon. Gentleman has great experience of public meetings; and therefore I would appeal to him that in future when he has to send a Government reporter to a public meeting in Ireland he should not provide him with the very best spot in the crowd. He might order that the policemen should take a stand near the platform on the right or the left. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that if his intention is to maintain law and order in Ireland, and if the inten-

  1129
  tion of the Government in sending Government reporters to our meetings be to cause us to mollify and tone down our speeches in a manner which will conduce to the fulfilment of his idea of law and order, he goes the very wrong way about it. What is it to any man who believes that even if he be not wholly free he is at least born to the inheritance of freedom—what are the feelings of such a man when he goes to a platform to address thousands of enthusiastic people, and the first spectacle presented to him is a crowd of 50 or 60 policemen, armed with bayonets, surrounding a man with a notebook, who has instructions to take down the words addressed to the people and send them to the archives of Dublin Castle? Do you hope to make our speeches any milder? Do you think we put a tooth in what we are going to say on account of such proceedings on your part? We Irishmen, whom you have never had the courage to taunt with cowardice, are we likely to do anything of the kind? I say deliberately that many a man addressing a public meeting—and I appeal to my hon. Friends who sit around me to say whether it is not their experience—that many a man addressing a public meeting is carried away by excitement to use stronger, far stronger, words than he would have used if the large police force had not been sent to the meeting. I do not pretend to have suffered much in that way myself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) quoted the other night some words which he attributed to me; but I felt it my duty to deny having used them. I wish, however, to say that what I have said at public meetings in the presence of policemen and Government reporters, I say here in this House. I say that your whole system of employing a policeman, not merely on extra duty is the result of a mistaken and vitiated policy; a policy that is wrecking and corrupting your administration in Ireland, and that that is the reason you find such difficulty in governing the country and in grappling with the Plan of Campaign or any other policy we pursue. I ask any hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench who may address the Committee in the course the evening to say where in Kerry was the Plan of Campaign adopted. I have no knowledge of its being adopted at
  1130
  all in Kerry, though it may have been adopted during the last few months. I have heard something of its possible adoption in the quieter parts of Kerry; but I ask the Government, Is the Plan of Campaign the cause of the disturbances and the cause of the disorder which take place in Ireland? Is the Plan of Campaign the cause of disturbance in Kerry? No; it is not. But I will tell you what is the cause, and it is that, from the year 1880 to the present time, you have evicted in Kerry 14,000 human beings, a greater record than that of any province in Ireland. You commenced your eviction work before there were any agitators there. For a long time the agitators have feebly tried to cope with you in inciting the people to engage in lawful and organized resistance to your atrocities. The agitators have been powerless there, because you got a long start of them. Now you have to maintain in Kerry an abnormal force of policemen whom we are asked to pay. Generally speaking, you maintain them in idleness—they only muster in force when any one of the local landlords want to evict the people, or any London mortgagee wants to burn down the dwellings. Now, what is the soothing prospect the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland holds out to us? It is that, in the near future, there is to be more coercion for Ireland; that the police force is to be augmented; that each jolly policeman, besides his 3s. 6d. a-day, is to have 2s. 6d. a day. I suppose that the ordinary jaunting-cars will be considered beneath the dignity of the Irish policemen in future, and that they will desire that they should be sent on eviction duty in barouches and the like. It is a disgrace to us, it is a scandal to the Parliament of England, that you should be spending vast sums of money upon the police force in Ireland, while millions of people are crying out for food. I think Her Majesty's Government would do well to in some way or other qualify the speech which was addressed to us to-night. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) would do much for his Government if he were to stand up in his place and promise that something should be done towards ascertaining what are the grievances of the people, what are their wants and wishes, and what are the

  1131
  means by which the use of this extraordinary expenditure can be prevented. I am glad to see that many hon. Gentlemen have visited Ireland during the last few months; indeed, Her Majesty's Government would do well if, instead of holding a Cabinet Council during the Easter Recess in Downing Street, they were to hold one in Glenbeigh or in Woodford. They would then have a chance of ascertaining the requirements of the people in respect of whose eviction this Vote is mainly asked. In conclusion, I will only ask that it shall not be said in taunt of us—"Shall we throw the government of Ireland into the hands of the Nationalist Members?" We do not want the government of Ireland; we do not want the sweets of Office; but we want you to understand what are the real desires of the people; we want you to have the courage to endeavour to construct some scheme of government which shall satisfy the people of our country. The people, when their grievances are removed, and their wants are satisfied, and their wishes are met in a fair and legitimate spirit, will seek out from every class, and creed, and position in the country men capable and willing, and with leisure, to perform the functions of representative government in that country.
  DR. COMMINS: I object to every item in this Vote, and I think that if the people of this country understood what we are voting the money for, my objection would be one that would be endorsed by every right-thinking man in Great Britain. This Vote shows an increase of £30,000 upon the original Estimate which the Government, no doubt, thought sufficient when they prepared it. I dare say when reckoning up the original Estimate, they were not at all niggardly, but allowed themselves a pretty freehand. I should have expected a little more information as to the reason why this extra expense was incurred than what is published in the details I find on the face of the Estimates. The only additional information we have received, however, was the information we got from the right hon. gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that these expenses, according to these details, were incurred, for the maintenance of law and order in Ireland. Sir, I am sick of hearing those remarks "law and order." They are pronounced
  1132
  with a judicial air on the Treasury Bench, and given to us in such a manner as though the whole question is, I will not say included, but not even opened. To tell us that "law and order" is enough to justify anything, is to assume that our intelligence is very slight indeed, or that our moral perceptions are remarkably blunt. "Law and order" forsooth! There is no place where there has been more law or order, and more absolute maintenance of it, than on board slave ships. You have absolute order on the deck, you have law and order in the hold where the human chattels are ranged in order and ticketed off. Proper law and order should be worthy of respect. Your law should be founded on justice, and your order should be the outcome of just law. But will anyone for a moment assert that the law in Ireland is just? Will anyone assert that the law—particularly the law as between the landlords and tenants in Ireland—is just? The whole means of living, so far as the tenants are concerned, are in the hands of people subject to caprice—a small class who have used their caprices for the purpose of the destruction of the people, and for the purpose of filling their own pockets, without the slightest regard to honesty. We are to maintain "law and order" by putting down the Plan of Campaign. This Plan of Campaign is declared to be an organized robbery, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary went as far as a gentleman of his courteous disposition could go, in insinuating that some of the Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side of the House were more guilty than anyone else in being participators in "organized robbery." People who use figurative language do not always mean what they say by it. On their part, it is rather an expression of feeling than any attempt to give utterance to a fact. But we do not hear anything like "organized robbery" applied to the landlords who for years have been drawing 50, 60 and 70 per cent over and above what the Courts of the country have now decreed to be a fair and proper rent. That was "organized robbery" if you like, and it was the worst sort of organized robbery. A man who comes and forcibly robs me in the street, or who, by sleight of hand, robs me of my watch, is a robber, no doubt; but he

  1133
  is not so bad a robber as the man who robs me under the colour of the law, and through the agency of the administrators of the law. That is a man who outrages my feelings, who outrages justice much more. Such robbery is almost the common course of things; and it is very clear that he is a robber who in Ireland is the greatest enemy to society. He is a greater enemy to law and order than any "moonlighter" or anyone else, even the common footpad. When they talk of "organized robbery" they should look back. Why, a Judge on the Bench in Ireland described the rents in that country as felonious rents, putting it in the strongest manner possible. He said the rents were levied under a law made by the landlords, exercised by the landlords, enforced by the landlords for their own benefit. Oh! but it is said the tenants came to an agreement amongst themselves to say what is a fair rent. We never hear that argument allowed; but when the landlords took it upon themselves to say what is a fair rent, no one said them nay. If an argument is good it should be good both ways. It is an unfortunate thing when the tenants have to take upon themselves to say what is a fair rent, no doubt, and then venture to enforce their views. No doubt, that is a very unfortunate thing; but why did they do it? They did it because the landlords, in years past, ever since the system of raising rents commenced in Ireland, said what should be their rent. There was nothing at all said about fairness then. The rent was as much an imposition as that levied from the Israelites by the Egyptians; and I maintain that the Irish have as much right to refuse this imposition of the landlords as the Israelites had to refuse payment of the imposition to the Egyptians. Well, these are the arguments in support of this expenditure that we are asked to allow. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says the Courts of the land have decided that this Plan of Campaign is illegal—I am not going to argue the question of the Plan of Campaign further than to say that it was introduced by the Chief Secretary—but he forgot what the highest Judge but one in Ireland—the Chief Baron of the Exchequer—said about himself in Sligo. This Judge said that, if he had the right hon. Gentleman before him, he would
  1134
  give him precisely the same treatment as he was meting out to the Woodford rioters. He said the right hon. Gentleman's own conduct was altogether illegal. It may have been extra-judicial of him to do that; but he certainly gave that opinion with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's interference with the discretion of the landlords in enforcing their rents in the way they wanted to do. There is another remark I would commend to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman says enforcing the law is the only thing that policemen are employed for, and they are the special conservators of law and order in Ireland. Well, as the law stands in Ireland, every man who is evicted has six months to redeem his holding; and during those six months he has a legal right in the house he has built, and the landlord has no right, even under a warrant, to turn him out. I should like to know if it was in the enforcement of the law that 150 policemen were sent to Glenbeigh, to stand there and see the houses burnt down? It could not be, becanse, as I say, the tenants have six months' right of redemption. There was no law in it. Riots is one of the things which the police are paid for attending. I should like to know if the police deserve this extra pay, in consequence of the way they enforced the law in connection with the recent Belfast riots? For three months riot was allowed to run loose in Belfast and other parts of Ulster, but principally in Belfast. Some of the police got killed, and, though they are an armed military force, they were content to stand by while they were ill-treated in this way while the riots were proceeding, and without using their arms even to defend themselves. Of course, to stand by as lookers-on while bloodshed was rife on the streets by day and night was upholding law and order! The people of England have heard a great deal about these riots during the sitting of the Royal Commissioners, who had shown very clearly that this police force in Ireland that is paid in this way, so far as Belfast is concerned, is inefficient, and that a few parish constables would be able to do more than was done by the hundreds of police in Belfast that stood idle while the riots were going on. Then, as to Elections, I should like to know why the police were employed

  1135
  about Elections in Ireland. There were neither riots nor disturbances at the Irish Elections, and yet the police are imposed upon the towns where elections are going on, and kept there for two or three days perfectly useless. No doubt, in times before the Ballot was the law of the land, it was pretty necessary to have a body of police in the streets during the elections—not only police, but troops also were employed. In England the law of the land prohibited such a thing as that; but, in Ireland, it was the general custom. Magna Charta and all the customs of this country notwithstanding, troops were present at all the elections. And there was not the slightest need for their assistance. Elections all over Ireland are perfectly peaceable and quiet; and I should like to ask how many of these items in this Vote have been spent in other towns except the two where riot existed for months together—namely, Belfast and Londonderry. Then the police were sent to meetings. Why were they sent to meetings? They were sent to meetings in their real character. We have 14,000 police in Ireland, and though they are called a police force, they are a police force no more than were the Royal Marines, who were sent over there some four months ago. The body is as much armed like a police force as were the Royal Marines. The fact of the matter is, it is a drilled, organized and disciplined army. It is all very well to call it police, and to say that it is intended to capture criminals, but we are told every day that it is absolutely inefficient for the capture of criminals, and it must be so, seeing that it is prohibited by its rules from holding intercourse with civilians. They are kept off from all communication with the people, and its object is simply to make away all public opinion and to intimidate the people of Ireland. Intimidation is the whole object of its being. It is sent to public meetings for the purpose of intimidation. After what the hon. Gentleman who has preceded me has said, I need not, however, say much about that; but I have attended myself plenty of public meetings in Ireland, and have never seen a disturbance or anything that called for the interference of the police. At every meeting in Ireland according to its extent you find a body of policemen varying from 20 to
  1136
  100 strong standing with their rifles in the town. Why? People in England do not understand that kind of thing; for neither police nor military attend public meetings in this country. The English people would be most astonished if a meeting were called to discuss say, Municipal Reform or Manhood Suffrage, or even to propagate Socialism, and they were to see 100 or 150 soldiers marching upon them with ball cartridge in their pouches and sword-bayonets by their sides. The people of England had too much regard for liberty of public meeting and liberty of speech to stand such a system of intimidation for one moment; and, yet, this is the kind of use we are told these police have been put to, in order to rack the taxpayers of England and Great Britain generally, of the sum of £19,800 over and above the estimate for the financial year. Put an end to that. Meetings are peaceable in Ireland. They do not need the interference of the police, nor do they want the presence of police reporters. It is said that it is only to protect those reporters who are sent to make reports to Dublin Castle, that the police are allowed to attend; but it will not be necessary to send protection for the reporters, if those gentlemen go to the meetings and give no offence. But it seems that they are accustomed to go as the police do, for the purpose of insulting the people and defying public opinion. They go as the representatives of the dominant class, which is determined to keep the people down, which holds the rod over every assembly in Ireland, and only permits freedom of speech as a boon and not as a right; so that both the reporters who are supposed to be protected and the police who are supposed to protect them are both an outrage upon that free speech which is granted to the English people by the law of the land. Then I come to head F—Travelling expenses. We know that if policemen are employed in England for extra duty, they do not get extra pay. If a policeman has to go and attend a meeting during an election or anything else, he gets his extra expenses but not this 3s. 6d. they get in Ireland. Irish policemen must have cars and marching money. It is just like the expense of marching a military force through a hostile country, which it really is. It is a hostile country—hostile to the existence of such a force as that,

  1137
  knowing perfectly well that the object of that force is either to outrage public sentiment, or suppress it. That is the reason the police are accommodated with cars when having to go a few miles in Ireland, and that they are allowed marching money to the extent of £11,060. It is quite as well that the people of England should know what they are paying this money for. It is just as well that they should know that it is not for police duty that they are paying, or for the suppression of crime; for, as I say, these men are absolutely useless for the suppression of crime. It is not for the detection of criminals, for as far as I know, or as far as it is explained to us, I am not aware that there is a single penny charged here for catching a criminal. The charge is made simply for the sake of creating a small reign of terror, for suppressing the opinions of the people, and for telling them—"You are under a rule which you must submit to, whether you like it or not, and which will follow you into all the relations of life, and watch every word spoken by you, or on your behalf; and if you make yourselves too restive under this restraint, we are prepared with another Coercion Act for you." That was the effect of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and I dare say he will be as good as his word. I dare say if this extra Vote is granted, as no doubt it will be, it will be an additional incentive to stimulate the police when they are wanted for the execution of this new Coercion Act. But I tell the right hon. Gentleman this new Coercion Act will be quite as useless as any of the 86 which have preceded it, and that it will do as little to change Irish public opinion, or reconcile it to the existing state of things; and it will do as little to remedy the real grievance we feel, which lies in our being supposed to enjoy Constitutional Government, when in reality we are under a despotism the worst in Europe. I am sorry to have trespassed so long on the attention of the House; but I think it necessary that these Votes should be ventilated fairly, and that the people of England should be made thoroughly acquainted with what they are spending this money for. I believe that when they are acquainted with that, they will do what we want them very much to do—namely, put a stop to
  1138
  the spending of money that does not carry out the purpose it is supposed to be spent for, but is used for an entirely different object.
  MR. JORDAN: I was astonished to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael nicks-Beach) this evening. He was put up to initiate and advocate the policy of the Government; but he said, in the course of his observations, that the Constabulary Vote was necessary to the maintenance of law and order in Ireland. Now what we complain of is, that the additional cost on this Constabulary Vote has been largely incurred through sending police where they were not necessary, and where there was not any possibility, nor any probability, of any breach of law and order. I attended, Sir, very many National League meetings in Ireland lately, and I must say I never found any necessity for policemen, more than a constable or two, it might be, to prevent an excess of drunkenness. I attended one in the Southern Division of Fermanagh about two months ago, one of the most loyal portions of the country; but, in spite of the loyalty of the district, at the meeting to which I refer, we had a large cohort of police. They did not come for the purpose of protecting the police reporter, because he was our mutual friend, Jeremiah Stringer, and we invited him to the platform and treated him as a gentleman. So that it could not be to protect him that they came. A short time after I went to another meeting, in County Cavan, in the constituency of one of my hon. Friends here—a meeting held in the town of Glengiolen, which the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. John Dillon) referred to to-day. We drove through the country—a very barren country indeed—and when we arrived at Glengiolen, we had an exceedingly large meeting. There was a large force of Constabulary there to receive us, although, as far as anyone could see, there was no necessity at all for it. But when we arrived there, the whole of one side of the road, for probably a quarter of a-mile, was covered with cars. I asked, "Why did all these come here; what are they for?"—and the reply given to me was, that they were cars used for conveying the Constabulary to the Glengiolen meeting.

  1139
  Well, I never attended a larger meeting, and I never in my life saw a more peaceable crowd. The Constabulary, so far from being at all necessary, did not absolutely put in an appearance in force; for, as I say, we invited the Government reporter to the platform, by me, and instead of the Constabulary putting in an appearance, they assembled behind the next hill to that upon which the meeting was held. So that at those meetings that I have attended there were large bodies of Constabulary, and, as a matter of course, very large expense was incurred, and a large addition must have been made to this Vote for taking the police to these meetings. There was, as I have said, no necessity for them whatever. They did not, on the last occasion, even put in an appearance at the meeting, for the reporter was treated in a very proper manner, and allowed to go on to the platform and take all the notes that were necessary; and, so far as I have attended meetings in the North of Ireland—either Land League or National League meetings—I have never seen any necessity for a single constable whatever—that is to say, I have never seen the necessity for Constabulary except at those meetings where the men who talk about law and order either came to them or said they would come to them and break them up. I have been to several meetings, and I have heard clergymen and others on the platforms instructing the people in this fashion—I have heard it a score of times—"Neither take offence nor give offence, and do not do anything that will cause the Constabulary to resist you or to interfere with you in any way whatever." So that I maintain that this additional Constabulary Vote has been incurred where there has been no necessity whatever in sending policemen to meetings of the most peaceable and quiet and orderly character that you could have any conception of. In point of fact, I attended the Socialistic meeting at St. Paul's the other Sunday, and I assure the House that it was a much more rowdy place than any Land League or National League meeting that I ever attended. And yet there were no bayonets nor rifles there. There were constables present; but they were in their ordinary dress, and they certainly did not interfere with and rush the people about as
  1140
  they would have been inclined to do if it had been a National League meeting in Ireland. In England, the relations between the people and the police and the people and the Government, are altogether different from the relations between the people and the police and the Government in Ireland. But, assuming that the police are necessary at evictions, we maintain that the police were sent to these evictions in undue numbers, therefore unduly increasing the cost of this Constabulary Vote. I recollect seeing a party in the town of Enniskillen—a party of Military and Constabulary collected for the purpose of carrying out an eviction in the neighbourhood. The force seemed more like an army than a Civil Force sent to do police duty. We had the Military there with their officers, and the Constabulary with their officers. We saw them all get upon cars. I do not think they ever get about without cars in that part of the country. Then the men were there with their superior officers, and the Resident Magistrate; and we all know that the conveying of police upon cars increases the cost of their operations very materially. We know that the sending of Resident Magistrates, not one but two and sometimes three with these armies, increases the cost of car hire, and that large extra pay has to be given to the men and officers. These eviction cases have increased the charge under this Vote to an undue extent, and admitting, for the sake of argument, that it is necessary to send a number of police to eviction cases, I say that the Government send too many, and that in proportion as they send undue numbers, so have they increased the cost, and this Police Vote has been swelled to the enormous extent that we now find it. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said the police has to be used. He said the police had to be increased and used in various fashions to prevent the tenants being forced to join the Plan of Campaign. To that I entirely demur. The tenants were never forced to join the Plan of Campaign. It was a voluntary act on their part. I told them myself that the question rested with themselves and not with us. I told them I did not desire to press them to adopt the Plan of Campaign. I told them by no means let them adopt the Plan of Campaign if their landlords had treated them fairly,

  1141
  and had made any fair overtures to them whatever, so I consider the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in declaring that the police had to be used for that purpose, and as a matter of course paid for the purpose of preventing tenants from being forced to join the Plan of Campaign is, to say the least of it, incorrect. I should not have time now to debate the question which the Chief Secretary for Ireland has raised in—to use his own phrase, speaking of "organized robbery." I assure him when I hear an official of his ability and what I consider his kindliness and geniality of disposition, making such a statement as that, I am induced to think that he does it more to irritate the Members of this Party, and to irritate the people of Ireland than anything else. It is that fact of hearing an official of his standing, who, on the whole, receives a fair amount of money himself and does not do anything for nothing—he is open to the accusation at any rate that was brought of old, that he does not serve the Lord for naught—it is hearing him talking about "organized robbery" which makes one almost boil with rage, only that it is contrary as a matter of course to the usages and traditions of this House for anyone to get enraged and angry on any question whatever. But if to appropriate the improvements and earnings of the Irish tenantry from time to time as I have known the landlords do in Ireland, be not robbery, I do not know what robbery is. Organized robbery of the grossest form, and legalized robbery into the bargain, has been committed by these landlords. The Plan of Campaign is not for the purpose of robbery. It is only for the purpose of endeavouring to get justice and fair play, and on the very same lines on which the right hon. Gentleman himself goes in Ireland. But the right hon. Gentleman took the kindly cases, and the cases that submitted to treatment; and we do but take the cases that would not so submit to treatment. Some of them, however, ultimately did submit to treatment, and we expect more of them to do so. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not wish to stop meetings in Ireland promiscuously; that he only used his Constabulary Force to suppress eight meetings, Well, he could not have suppressed these eight meetings without these Constabulary, and the Constabulary that he sent there
  1142
  were sent at a great cost and expense; and I say that that item, whatever it amounts to for the Constabulary who suppressed these meetings, was unduly and improperly incurred and ought not to be paid. As a pure matter of business, there was no necessity for suppressing any meeting; and if he suppressed a meeting at an expense of £100, the eight meetings would bring the cost up to £800 or nearly £1,000, and that of itself was unduly expended and should not be put in this Vote. But I do not know what right he had to suppress eight meetings. He seemed to make very little of suppressing eight meetings; but I make a great deal of it. I think it is an un-Constitutional and illegal exercise of his power eight times told, and I do not think that the Government were authorized, under any circumstances, in suppressing not eight, but even one of these meetings. He said also that he should not have a word to say against Irish Members, nor, I suppose, against Irish meetings either, if they had acted in what he considered a Constitutional manner. Well, Sir, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for nothing. It is no compliment for him to say say to us that he would not have a word to say to the Irish Members nor to the Irish people; and that he would not have had to draft police into the localities if they had acted just as he had expected them to act, or thought they would have acted. But I cannot say, after all, that either the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the Attorney General for Ireland, or the Solicitor General for Ireland, would have been so pleased if the people had acted as they say now they would have liked them to act. We hear lawyers from time to time, denouncing Acts of Parliament and other things; while all the time they are making handfuls of money out of the very things they are denouncing. I cannot therefore say that the Chief Secretary for Ireland or those other officials would be so very well pleased if the Irish people just went on the very lines they choose to say they would like them to go on. There would not be so much for them to do, and there would not be such high fees for them to reap. If the Irish tenants and the Irish Party are to go on the lines that the right hon. Gentleman says he wishes them to go on, what would the Irish tenants have got from him or from the

  1143
  Government? We have again and again come to this House in what the right hon. Gentleman calls a Constitutional manner, and it has been almost impossible to obtain from Members of this House what we consider the rights of Irishmen. The rights of the Irish tenant, no matter how clearly or fully you prove the necessity of the case—and the rights of the Irish tenant have been pressed over and over again upon the attention of Parliament—have never been listened to until quite recently. We have had lately during the Premiership of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) the impossibility of obtaining justice for Ireland, especially the tenant farmers. We have had another illustration in the rejection of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell)—another illustration of the impossibility of obtaining justice or fair play for the Irish tenants through certain states of feeling in this House. So that we could not have obtained as much as we have obtained, had we maintained that docile position that the Chief Secretary for Ireland indicated that we ought to have done. But the Chief Secretary for Ireland also stated that the Government did not strain the law in Ireland. Well, if there is one impression that has taken hold of the Irish people more than another, it is that the law of Ireland has not only been strained, but is being strained now, and always has been strained against the tenant farmer and the democracy of that country. We consider that the Government has strained the law in every possible fashion. It has strained the law irrespective of what the Chief Secretary for Ireland said to-night. We believe he has strained it in proclaiming our meetings, when the Government has taken what is called the sworn affidavits of some person or other who apprehended danger. I remember a meeting at Brookborough in Fermanagh as to which it was sworn on affidavit by a clergyman in the midst of his parishioners, who chiefly attended the meeting, that there was no more fear or danger of a riot than there is at present on the empty Benches of this House; and yet that meeting was suppressed. It was not a meeting in the West of Ireland composed of people that the North of Ireland look upon as all barbarians; but it was in the midst of a loyal Pro-
  1144
  testant population who believe in law and order as denned by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and in the Queen, and in other things of that sort as necessary not only to right living in this world but also to secure them a safe passage to the other. But we also believe that the Government has strained the law in striking jury panels. They have strained the law in that respect, not only in striking the panels, but in endeavouring to pack them.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That subject is in no way connected with this additional Vote.
  MR. JORDAN: Of course I bow to your decision, Sir. I have the greatest possible respect for your authority in the Chair, but I thought that following the Chief Secretary for Ireland I had a right to reply to the observations he has made in relation to the straining of the law. I am only explaining, but as you, Sir, have decided that I cannot refer to this question of the striking of jury panels, I will turn aside from that course. The right hon. Gentleman said he wanted additional powers to bring persons to justice. As a matter of course, in getting additional powers we all assume he is likely to increase and consolidate and conserve the Constabulary Force of the country. He said he wanted these additional powers, and very likely he would get them, to bring to justice those who had broken the law. Well, our ideas are different from the right hon. Gentleman's. We think that his idea of law is not justice. We think that in the administration of the law, and by introducing the Constabulary as he has done in many cases, that the administration of the law in Ireland has not been just: and if he seeks for further powers in that direction, I think that the Government might as well abolish juries altogether in Ireland and the ordinary administration of what they call law, and try our people by drum-head court martial, or something else of that sort, and let the Executive declare the guilt of people without any trial whatever. Having thus endeavoured to show that there was no necessity for the employment of the great number of police who have been employed owing to the National movement, in suppressing National meetings for the maintenance of the Plan of Campaign; and having en-

  1145
  deavoured to criticize the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I have much pleasure in resisting the additional Vote that is now sought to be imposed upon us.
  MR. H. CAMPBELL: I should consider myself a very poor type of Irishman if I did not carry out the wishes of my constituents, who have sent me here to protest as strongly as I can against these Supplementary Votes. It appears that this Vote of £19,800 is for the subsistence of policemen while attending riots, elections, and meetings. I think it cannot be said that the Government are at all bashful when they come to the House and ask us to Vote a Supplementary sum for the purposes of policemen attending at riofs. Within the last 12 months there have been very few riots in Ireland. The only riots which occurred in Ireland that were worthy of the name, were those at Belfast; and I point out that they were largely, I may say almost entirely, instigated by a speech made in Belfast by the late mouthpiece of the Government, the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). It was that speech which led to those monstrous riots, and necessitated the sending of an enormous body of policemen to Belfast and their maintenance there for a period of many weeks; and we cannot regard the Government as wanting in assurance in asking for a Supplementary Estimate under this head. It is only a few weeks ago that I attended a meeting of my constituents in South Armagh; it was called for the distinct purpose of considering their position with regard to the payment of rent, and it was not a meeting at which any disturbance occurred or was likely to occur. Nevertheless, a large detachment of police were sent there, and they came with rifles, batons, and cutlasses, so that anyone would have supposed, on looking at them, that he was in some other country than Great Britain—a country, for instance, recently annexed from the Hottentots. I protest, and that strongly, against the expenses which are incurred in sending policemen to quiet meetings throughout Ireland. It is a monstrous state of things to have a Government reporter placed upon your platform, his car hire and hotel expenses being paid by the people of Great Britain—a man sent there for no
  1146
  other purpose than, so far as I can see, to pick a quarrel with those who represent the majority of the people of Ireland, for I hold that we, the Nationalist Party, represent the majority of the people there. I say there is no reason for the police being sent to such meetings, and there is no call for the enormous force of police now in Ireland. Not that I object to the policeman; I believe that an Irish policeman will make as good a Constitutional policeman, under self-government, as an ex-Constitutional policeman under the existing Government. I repeat that there is no reason for the unnecessary expenditure incurred in the course of the year for the hire of cars, railway fares, and for the marching money of these policemen; and I am glad to be here to lodge my protest in behalf of my constituents against this monstrous state of affairs. There was a meeting in another division of the county which I have the honour to represent. I refer to the meeting at Rosslea. What happened with regard to that? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland—acting, I have no doubt, on the misrepresentations of some of his followers in the county—telegraphed that it was necessary to proclaim this meeting, and, if necessary, disperse it by force. The right hon. Gentleman thereby deprived the people of the Constitutional right of expressing their views as to their inability to pay the rents which were then falling due. The people, outraged at this, betook themselves to different quarters of the district, and organized and held not only one but several meetings. Thus the right hon. Gentleman was completely baulked in his effort to prevent the people assembling; while he put the people of Great Britain and Ireland to considerable expense which he might have saved them, and which a little forethought, under a Constitutional form of Government, undoubtedly would have saved them. I protest strongly against this Vote for a police force which is regarded with justice in Ireland as a force that is not there as guardian of the peace—not as a force which should look after the interests and welfare of the people—but as the persecutors of the peasantry and the rent extractors of the landlords. I am glad to tell the Chief Secretary for Ireland that if he persists

  1147
  in sending his policemen down to that portion of Fermanagh which I have the honour to represent, he will find that the Nationalists of Fermanagh will be there as ready to do battle against his acts as they would be in Tipperary.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I rise to enter the strongest protest I can against the expenditure of money on what I consider tyrannical and unconstitutional purposes connected with the Irish Constabulary. I do not use those words lightly and without having considered their full meaning and import. The Government come before us with a great flourish of trumpets and a good deal of thumping of the war drum, to announce their intention of bringing in a measure of coercion for Ireland, and although they do not tell us what that measure is to be, it will be a very drastic one if it is to prove more effective than the Coercion Acts we are familiar with. But there is one factor which has not been taken into consideration, and that is that the British taxpayers are alive to what is going on in Ireland; they understand by the action which many of us are taking in the country that they are being taxed to an enormous and unnecessary extent in order to bolster up this wretched Government of Coercion, and in order to give landlords the satisfaction of exterminating the unfortunate tenantry of Ireland. Now, as sure as another Coercion Act is rushed through this House under the new process of fettering free speech which the Government are engaged in forcing on us, you will find—and I am speaking with some knowledge of the feeling of the country—that the country will not tolerate the suppression of free speech at public meetings and every other element of freedom in Ireland, for the mere pleasure of putting exaggerated sums upon the Votes for the purpose of maintaining a system of tyranny which they repudiate and loathe, and which would not be tolerated in this country. I have seen something of the action of the police in Ireland. I will not trench upon the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), in which he referred to the espionage system for which the Constabulary system is, to a great extent, maintained; but I must say that I know something of that, because no sooner did I set foot in Ireland and was seen in
  1148
  company with the hon. Member for East Mayo, or Mr. O'Brien, than I found that the police were on my track. What perplexed me was that they did not try to arrest me, because I certainly went farther than some of those hon. Members who have been put on their trial. I rose, however, to place before the Committee some instances of what appear to me cases of wanton ruffianism on the part of the police. I will take the case of Glenbeigh. I am not going into the details connected with the evictions there beyond saying this. I will repeat what I have once before said, that during those terrible scenes of suffering I have seen the police behave with remarkable humanity; but I have also seen the police there and elsewhere behave with exaggerated activity against helpless women and children. I say that, when you find the police deliberately and without provocation hustling women and children and beating them down with their batons and the butts of their rifles, their action deserves and requires the strongest condemnation on the part of the Government. Then there was the case of 23 unfortunate persons who were illegally taken to Tralee Gaol, and who were met by a brass band and a general rejoicing, when the police rushed in upon the unfortunate people, broke one man's head, and otherwise behaved in what I call a most lawless and tyrannical way. I comment upon this, because these things on the part of the police do not happen in this country. It is not long since a similar incident occurred at Torquay, where some Salvationists were sent to gaol. When they came out they were met with a brass band, and there was a general rejoicing; but I have not heard that the police rushed in and broke the heads of the unfortunate people. Why do we tolerate things which take place daily in Ireland, and which would not be tolerated for one moment in this country? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has given us a long yarn about the woman who held out her purse with sovereigns in it, who would have paid her rent were it not for an execrable priest who prevented her doing it; but, when challenged, he refused to give us his authority. I think it would have only been candid on his part to have given us that other story of a priest, which everyone knows to be perfectly true—

  1149
  namely, where a bloody encounter between the police and the tenants of Lord Cork and Orrery was prevented by the loyal, judicious, and patriotic action of a priest who effected a settlement between the agent and the tenants. I want this Committee and the country to understand that those unfortunate people, against whom Her Majesty's troops, gunboats, and armed police were sent, have been living practically upon seaweed and otherwise in the greatest state of destitution; while, for a number of years, Lord Cork and Orrery has been enjoying huge sums which have come out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country—in the first place, on account of the sinecure of the Mastership of Her Majesty's Buckhounds; and, secondly, on account of his position as Master of Her Majesty's Horse, to which he was appointed last year at a salary of £2,500 a-year by the late Liberal Government. I say that this noble Lord is in receipt of public money, and that he ought to have more sense of humanity than to try to force to the ground and exterminate his unfortunate tenantry, whom he knows to be starving.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entirely out of Order. He must direct his observations to the charge for the Constabulary Force provided for by the Vote before the Committee.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I submit to your ruling, Mr. Courtney, and shall not pursue that subject any further. I shall, I hope, be quite in Order in illustrating my general argument as to the conduct of the police force, upon which I base my great objection to this money being voted, by a case which has recently come under my notice from the same part of the country. It is, I think, only right that public attention should be aroused to the enormity of the facts which I propose to bring before the Committee. Here is the case of a gentleman whom I know personally. Mr. Ferriter was present at a meeting which I addressed—he is not an unknown man. He occupies the position of relieving officer, or collector of rates; and I find that within the last week or two he has been summoned before the Resident Magistrate, on the ground that, at a public meeting at Dingle, he cried out "Hervey Duff" before the police, thereby exciting the people, and called upon to show cause
  1150
  why he should not find securities for his good behaviour in future.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I fail to see how that case applies to the Vote before the Committee.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I refer to it to show what was the action of the police in this matter—how they trumped up a charge against Mr. Ferriter which I venture to describe as one of the most infamous I have ever heard of.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not sufficient to point to improper conduct on the part of the police, it must be connected with the sum asked for in this Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I understand that the police were present, engaged on special duty, for which we are now asked to vote this extra pay. The police were standing, in my presence, around the Government note-taker, and it was by those police who were engaged on this special service—namely, protecting the Government note-taker, that this gentleman was brought before the Resident Magistrate and thrown into prison because he could not find bail.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must rule that to be entirely outside this Vote.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Then, I will not pursue the subject further. I will just mention briefly another case which occurred in the neigh bourhood where I was. I believe I shall not be out of Order in doing so, because on that occasion the police were engaged in the service for which we are voting this money. Half a-dozen men were talking together in the house of a man named McNulty, and the police, who were under the impression that he had been illegally receiving money under the Plan of Campaign, rushed in and seized him. I refer to this in order to bring home to the mind of the Committee the extraordinary proceedings which are constantly taking place in Ireland by the action of the men for whom we are asked to vote special allowances. I will endeavour to keep myself within the limits of Order, by turning to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman explained that the cost of the Constabulary was necessary in order to secure law and order. Now, I venture to say that that is begging the question. We say it is not neces-

  1151
  sary. The question is, whether the Government are not pursuing an entirely wrong method for securing law and order in Ireland. It was made most clear by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that the action and policy pursued by the Government in relation to the police has a greater tendency to irritate and provoke conflict between the people and the constituted Authorities—a more direct tendency to bring law and order into contempt than anything that can possibly be devised. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look back to the dark history of the Tory times in our own country—to the times of Lord Castlereagh; to the time when these same methods of coercion were practised by Tories in our country. The experience of those times proves the uselessness of the policy they are now pursuing in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman pursued, in some detail, the argument in respect to the estate of Lord Clanricarde, and asked us to believe that the Bill of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) would not have assisted the tenants on that estate. He asked us to believe that the tenants on that estate were perfectly able to pay, but were prevented, by a combination, from making any payment whatever. If I am not out of Order in criticizing the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman about the difficulty on the Clanricarde estate, I should like to remind him of what is the real fact about the nonpayment of rent by the tenants there. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole difficulty arose from the compulsory rack-renting of the tenants in past times, because they defeated the land agent of Lord Clanricarde at a political election in 1872? Is he aware of the amount of the fines they have been subjected to because they ventured to show a spirit of independence? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of 10 or 12 tenants an annual fine, amounting in all to about £119, has been placed upon thorn because they voted against Lord Claniicarde's nominee? It may be the case, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that there were some of the tenants who could pay the rent, but refused to do so; but he should recollect that if there were some who, in combination with others, refused to pay, it was because there was a far greater number of poorer tenants
  1152
  who could not pay under any circumstances; and who knew that it was only by standing shoulder to shoulder, as everyone in the country has a right to do, that they could get any protection.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I appeal to you, Mr. Courtney, to say whether the hon. Member is in Order?
  MR. CONYBEARE: The hon. and gallant Admiral is really a little too hasty. I had just finished the point I was upon, and I only wish to add that it appears to me—no matter what the decision may be of the Irish Judges who pronounce their obiter dicta with all the appearance of infallible judgment—that the Plan of Campaign is justifiable. The right hon. Gentleman said also, at the conclusion of his speech, that hon. Members from Ire-land who say they can maintain law and order under a system of Home Government, and with a Constabulary which would cost only £400,000, could only do so by abolishing property. I join issue with the right hon. Gentleman on that ground. It is not the hon. Members from Ireland who wish to abolish property. It is perfectly inaccurate to say that they or the tenants on any estate in Ireland desire to rob the landlords of their property. I have seen something of the condition of these estates and the condition of the tenants; and from inquiries I have made I can say, by the feelings evinced by the tenants in the most poverty-stricken districts, that there is not the slightest shadow of dishonesty on their part, or the slightest desire to say that the land belongs to them, and that they will not pay rent. They are willing to pay rent; but they are not willing to go on starving by inches in order to put in the pockets of the landlords rent which it is perfectly well known to political economists the land can never produce. There is another point which I wish to bring before the notice of the Committee with reference to the action of the Constabulary as affecting this Vote. It is the lawless policy of the right hon. Gentleman and his allies in permitting and sanctioning, in spite of all protests and representations, the employment of the police at evictions for purposes which I hold to be perfectly illegal. The legal remedy of the landlord is to regain possession of his holding. I challenge the Government to prove that the landlord has

  1153
  any further right in the case of eviction than to have the holding which he desires to recover handed over to him by the Sheriff. But what has been done is more than that. At those evictions which my hon. Friend the Member for North Meath (Mr. Mahony) and I attended in Glenbeigh, we challenged the Sheriff to withdraw, and he did withdraw. But the Sheriff was actually impeded and obstructed, and prevented from going to other holdings to perform his duty there, because the whole body of police were wanted to stay and protect the incendiary agent. I challenge hon. Members to show a single Act under which landlords can require that the forces of the Crown can be kept from their proper duty of protecting the Sheriff in order to protect a landlord's agent in his work of incendiarism and demolition. I have not, at any rate, been able to find such a law. I admit that if the legal remedy of the landlord were to burn and demolish the houses on his estate, that he might then require the assistance of the police; but it is not within the functions of the police to stand by to protect the agent, and their action in this case has been altogether illegal and lawless. Well, Sir, I want to know how you can expect poor people in Ireland to have any respect for law and order when you have such an example of lawlessness set them by Her Majesty's Government. I ask the right hon. Gentleman under what Act it is that he has proclaimed meetings in Ireland? Has he proclaimed them on the information of persons who know nothing about the matter; or, if they do know anything, indulge in prognostications of mischief which, as far as my experience goes, are never fulfilled? As it appears to me, Her Majesty's Government, when last in Office, deliberately refused to continue the Crimes Act, and as I have been unable to find any other Act enabling them to put down meetings, except that Act which has expired, I am forced to the conclusion that their conduct is illegal and un-Constitutional. And yet we are told by those Gentlemen on this side of the House, who pretend to be Liberals, though they are supporting the Tory Government all the time—these so-called Unionists—that there is but one law for England and Ireland, and that Ireland enjoys equal laws with England. It was their constant cry during the last Election that Ireland was to be treated
  1154
  on the same lines as England. I ask again would it be possible to proclaim meetings in this country as you are doing every day in Ireland? Would it be possible to do anyone of these things that I have been placing before the Committee? If not, how idle it is to talk about the laws of England and Ireland being equal, or about there being any similarity between the administration of law and justice in the two countries. We are promised a new Coercion Bill, and I can only say that, so far as I am concerned, and so far as I know anything at all about the feeling of the country, the English people will not tolerate any longer the voting of these enormous sums of money, for they understand what it means to-day. They will not vote these sums of money for the perpetuation of this miserable, effete, coercive policy of the Government of Ireland. It is because that is my conviction—a conviction I have arrived at not by hearsay, but by mixing amongst the people of England—that, on behalf of the taxpayers of this country, as one of their Representatives, I protest against this extra police Vote.
  MR. KENNEDY: I rise to protest against this extraordinary increase in the Vote for the Irish Constabulary, for the simple reason that, in my opinion, the expenditure on police in Ireland has been extravagant and unnecessary. I would trouble the Committee to examine how this Vote has been calculated. It is entered here as extra pay; but I do not see why the amount has been placed on the record as we find it. We are to vote the Estimate without knowing the exact figures which are to be put down under each head; for instance, the amount which is to be put down under the head of "evictions." I say it is voting in the dark—although to say the truth, however we vote this evening we shall be voting in a fog. There is one item here I think ought to be paid, that is the item for police in connection with the riots in Belfast. But though I consider that the expenses incurred in consequence of those riots should be paid, I would not impose the whole of the charge upon the National Exchequer. I think a part of it should be borne by the Members of the Government. I think that, as a peace offering and to meet the equity of the case, they should ton-tribute one-half the expense of restor-

  1155
  ing and maintaining order in that city. We hear a great deal indeed about restoring law and order in Ireland; but nothing has been said by any Member of the Government, with regard to the usual orderly condition of Irish towns. We have not heard it stated, for instance, that the metropolis of Ireland was without police for a period of nearly a-week, and that during that time there was neither murder nor robbery there. And yet Ireland is the country that is said to be in such a dreadful state that it requires this large amount of extra money to be spent upon the maintenance of law and order. I would ask the Committee to consider the tremendous extravagance of the different departments of the Constabulary in Ireland. There is one point which has not been touched upon during the whole of this discussion this evening, and it is an expenditure which I am sure, if properly estimated, would be found to amount to £200,000 or £300,000; and that is the appointment of men, nominees of the landlords of Ireland, to cadetships in the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am reluctant to interfere with a new Member; but I would point out to him that he must direct his criticism to the special sum asked for in this Vote and the services supplied by that sum.
  MR. KENNEDY: Then, Sir, I would say that this money is expended unnecessarily, and I will give an instance in proof of my assertion. The duties of the police generally—at least in country towns, where no rents have to be exacted—are these:—To get up at 8 o'clock in the morning, to breakfast at 9, dine at 2, take tea at 7, and retire to bed at 10; except one or two, who may be allowed to go through the town at 12 when their very delicate constitutions call them to rest. I may say that in the Division that I have the honour to represent—namely, South Sligo—I appointed as my election agent a gentleman who had received most brutal treatment at the hands of the police. In that part of the country, the Representatives of the people are not allowed to address the people. I wonder would such a thing be permitted in England for a moment? What has happened in Sligo would not be allowed to happen in any other country which has any form of what is called a Constitution. But
  1156
  in Ireland we have a Government which, though Constitutional in name, is no more—to use an American expression—than a one-horse Government. With these few words, and thanking the Committee for having listened to me, I wish to urge upon hon. Members the desirability of rejecting this Vote.
  MR. O'HANLON: I should like to ask some of the Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite how they propose to distribute this large sum added to the original charge for last year's expenses? I believe that if we put the tax upon the proper parties we should put it upon the landlords. It is the landlords who have been the cause of the Government and the Committee to-night spending so much time talking over this large sum of money. They it is who have been the means of bringing this charge upon the British taxpayers. Why is it that the British taxpayers stand these payments to policemen in Ireland? We do not want these men; we are prepared ourselves to pay for a regular Police Force to do police duty. We are prepared to maintain a Police Force in Ireland similar to that which we meet with in England. When I first came to London I thought I had never been in a place in the whole course of my life where there was so much liberty. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, I think Englishmen have a right to be proud of that; but when I go to Ireland I find a very different state of things prevailing. Last Sunday I was passing up by St. Paul's, where I saw a large demonstration of people. It was composed of that class of people called Socialists. Now, I believe in London you have something like 9,000 Socialists, who are now hungering for bread, while you are giving the money of the British taxpayer to maintain a Force of Constabulary to collect the rents of the Irish landlords. I think it high time that the people of England, Scotland, and Wales struck against voting money for the purposes for which the Government ask us to give them this Vote to-night. With regard to a portion of these charges, I should like the Committee to say that it should be placed on the shoulders of the landlords on account of the number of emergency men they have employed through the country. We are asked to pay for a force to do the dirty work of the landlords after they have pulled down the

  1157
  miserable houses of their tenants. Now, Sir, I think that we should be given information with regard to the Belfast riots by the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been returned by constituencies in the North of Ireland. They have displayed considerable courage on former occasions; and surely they are now in a position to state how much of the money we are now asked to vote was spent in consequence of the riots in the town of Belfast, that great centre of loyalty, where every man is free, and loyalty reigns supreme. I am very glad to see that a large number of English gentlemen and Representatives of English constituencies have visited Ireland within the last 12 months; because I am satisfied that by so doing they have gained more information with regard to the policy of the present Government, and the general misrule observed in Ireland, than they ever could gain by listening to Irish Members here, although they speak nothing but the simple truth. [Laughter.] I wish many more of the English people, and those English Representatives who laugh at what I say, would come over to Ireland, and witness for themselves the tyrannical manner in which people are treated; I wish they would visit the district of Gweedore, a district I visited not long ago. I was there, I am sorry to say, at the time of some evictions, and saw 40 or 50 poor tenants driven out of their houses, and their doors closed against them—closed, not with locks, because there are no locks on the doors in that poor district—but closed against them by means of barricades. A large portion of the money they were now asked to grant was expended upon the force engaged in the eviction of these tenants. I saw many tenants who were forced out of their houses by the police lying in the ditches with nothing but straws and sticks to cover them. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh, but if they will go over to Ireland they will learn what straws and sticks mean. It is said that the people evicted are farmers, but I know what farmers are. These are people who occupy little farms, but who never earn in Ireland the landlord's rent; some of them have to go to Scotland, some to them to America, and some to England in harvest time to earn the rent, and when harvest time is over the landlord's
  1158
  representative comes round the estate with a thousand or two policemen to collect the hard earnings of these people. The present state of things is very lamentable, and I am surprised that the British taxpayers, seeing that their manufacturing industries at home are declining, and that there is a general depression, do not strike against being called upon to pay these large and exorbitant sums for Irish police. But, Mr. Courtney, there is another aspect to this case—although this money is spent upon policemen, the policemen are in some cases very badly treated. They are very often put into inferior lodgings, and called upon to incur immense expense; wherever there is an eviction it is certain that all the cars and carts that can be obtained will be obtained for the conveyance of the policemen and their ammunition and baggage. I cannot help thinking that by this Vote the Government are really trying to manufacture evictions. It is a most grievous thing that the Government should lend a large force of police for the protection of landlords and the plundering of tenants. If we had the control of the police force in Ireland, we should certainly put them to their proper business—namely, the protection of the general public, their arms being the ordinary batons, and not have them perambulating the country armed with swords and bayonets. I claim that under a Home Rule Government, not under the Government of the present Chief Secretary (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) and the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) and Dublin Castle—we could manage the affairs of Ireland, with one fifth part of the present police force we could govern Ireland in a very nice manner, something like the way in which things are managed here; but London seems to be under the control of the people; whereas we are in Ireland under the control of the blood-suckers of the people. [Laughter.] Some Gentlemen on the front Government Bench know very well what I mean. To take the police from their real duties is not calculated to make us loyal, even if we were inclined to be disloyal. Well, Mr. Courtney, with regard to the Irish police force, I am sorry to say that it is not the rank and file, the farmers' sons in the police, who get those largo sums of money. I do

  1159
  not know whether any portion of the Secret Service money goes to the officers of the police.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are very discursive; he must confine himself to the special sums asked for in this Vote, and the service covered by these sums.
  MR. O'HANLON: I abide by your ruling, Mr. Courtney, but I believe that this large sum of £30,965 goes principally to the officers who are mostly the sons of worn out landlords. [Laughter.] I do not mean worn-out by old age, but by debauchery. Now, I should like to know how long will the British taxpayers stand the present form of Government in Ireland. At present there are a great many Socialists in Ireland. The present system makes Socialists.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the subject under discussion.
  MR. O'HANLON: What I mean is this, that this £30,965 should be given, not to the policemen in Ireland, but to a party that requires it a great deal more. I venture to say that the magistrates of Ireland are very much to be blamed for this large expenditure. The Government appoint magistrates because they are thoroughly Party men, and these men are, in great measure, responsible for the extravagance of this expenditure. I do not think that the wisdom of English thinking men, and the shrewd judgment of Scotchmen, and, indeed, of Welshmen—and the latter are nearly as badly off as ourselves—will stand this much longer. The time is fast approaching when there will be an alteration. I cannot help thinking that if a true and fair issue had been put before the country at the last Election, this expenditure would not have been asked for to-night, because a Government is in power that, by rights, should not be in power. It is simply on this account that I wish to make my voice heard here to-night; and to let the British taxpayers know the cause and reason why so large a sum as £30,965 is dragged from their resources. I want to show, as an Irish Representative, that it really is unfair for the Government to come down to this House and to ask them to sanction the squandering of the money of the British taxpayers in this manner.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: Mr. Courtney, the fact that there has already been voted for Police Services in Ireland no less a sum than nearly £1,500,000, and that we are now asked to vote a further sum of £30,965, invests the debate of this evening with considerable interest; and I think that interest has been very largely enhanced by the speech which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). For my part, I should not have delayed the Committee by interposing in this discussion for one instant, were it not for the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to make; and in the few remarks which I propose to offer to the Committee I will endeavour to deal with some of the statements which the right hon. Gentleman has made. Sir, he started out with a statement which, of course, nobody will be disposed to deny—namely, that the maintenance of a Police Force in Ireland is absolutely essential. No one disputes that for a moment. No one disputes that it is essential that law and order should be maintained in Ireland. [Ministerial cheers.] I am glad to gain an approving cheer from that quarter of the House. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the kind of law and order which he desired to maintain in Ireland was law and order according to his standard. [Cheers.] The cheer is not so loud. I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's own Supporters are of opinion that he has maintained law and order according to his own standard in Ireland? Why, Sir, the whole speech of the right hon. Gentleman's to-night was a confession of absolute failure and incompetency to govern the country. The law and order which the right hon. Gentleman desires he has failed to maintain, and yet we are asked for this large increase in the Police Vote. The right hon. Gentleman's own Supporters are my witnesses. Only to-day I was reading in the columns of a paper, which I think: the right hon. Gentleman has quoted from time to time, although he is remarkably shy in acknowledging his authority—The Dublin Daily Express—only this morning I was reading an article in that journal denouncing the

  1161
  present Government because they have not maintained law and order in Ireland; and the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges as much when he winds up his speech by saying that it will be necessary to ask for further powers. My point is this, that this large and exorbitant amount of money for police services is money practically thrown away, because it has not effected any good purposes towards maintaining law and order; but, on the contrary, has led to the disturbance of law and order very frequently in Ireland. It is true there has been during the winter months of this year a remarkable absence of serious crime in Ireland; but does the right hon. Gentleman contend, for a moment, that that is the result of the action of his police, or of his government? Allusion has already been made to this point by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who initiated this discussion. My hon. Friend alluded to a point which I would beg permission to emphasize, and which is most significant—namely, that you cannot for the past 50 years put your finger upon any period of similar agricultural distress in Ireland which was less stained by agrarian crime than the winter months up to last Christmas. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) thought proper to speak of the Plan of Campaign, which was admittedly organized by the hon. Member for East Mayo and others, as a system of organized robbery. Well, the right hon. Gentleman used to be distinguished in this House by the courtesy with which he conducted discussions. I am sorry to observe that his experience at the Irish Office has so severely tried his temper, that he has forgotten those courtesies which have always regulated his action and speech in this House up to the present time. Sir, it is the Plan of Campaign, and not the police, which has preserved Ireland from months of bloodshed and crime. ["Oh, oh!"] I assert that where the police have failed, the Plan of Campaign has proved itself a bulwark of the public peace. I do not want, if I can possibly avoid it, to stray from the subject. I recognize the fairness of your rulings, Mr. Courtney, and I desire to speak within those rulings; but I would like to point out, as this matter has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman, that in those parts of Ireland where the Plan
  1162
  of Campaign has been at work, notably on estates like that of Lord Dillon, there has been an utter absence of agrarian crime; and that crime has appeared where public meetings have been suppressed, where the Plan of Campaign has not been put into operation, and where the right hon. Gentleman has had a free hand for his firm and resolute government. An allusion was made by the right hon. Gentleman to the evictions which have been taking place. The chief part of this Vote is asked for the expenses of policemen at these evictions; and the right hon. Gentleman went, to some extent, into the merits of these evictions, and in regard to these particular instances I claim a right of answering him. He alluded to the evictions on Lord Clanricarde's estate, and he asked us, did we venture to deny that some of the tenants on this estate could pay the rents but had refused? The right hon. Gentleman ought, in the first place, to have answered the challenge which my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo gave him. He ought to have answered specifically the question—Was Lord Clanricarde's estate one of those estates to which the Government applied that "pressure within the law" of which we have heard so much, and was that one of the estates on which they failed? Because, if it was one of the estates, if Lord Clanricarde was one of the landlords whom the Government attempted, by their pressure, to induce to make reductions, and they failed in their object; with what a face does he come to this House and charge us, as if it were a crime, with, forsooth, simply carrying on a course of action which he himself initiated! On this point of the tenant, in case of eviction, being able to pay the rent and refusing to do so, a very significant piece of evidence has been given within the last few days. What does your own Commission say? It was remarked that the very first thing that this Unionist Government did was to show the very greatest ignorance of the state of facts in Ireland. They disputed the deductions of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) when he introduced his Tenants' Relief Bill. They disputed that there had been such a fall in prices of agricultural produce in Ireland as to make the full payment of judicial rents impossible. They appointed a tribunal

  1163
  of their own. Their own tribunal has given us a verdict against them. Their own tribunal has laid down that prices have fallen at least 18½ per cent, and that in consequence the payment of judicial rents has become impossible; and it is relying upon that fact, to which the Commission bears testimony, that the tenants upon the Clanricarde estate, and those who have been supporting them, have entered into this movement. I pass, now, to another point—namely, that of the action of the Government in the suppression, or the attempted suppression, of public meeting. Now, Mr. Courtney, my first contention is that the action of the Government in the attempted suppression of meetings in Ireland—for which attempted suppression a portion of this Vote is asked—is illegal. I maintain that the Government have no legal warrant for the action that they have taken. Sir, it is laid down by great authorities—by Coke, for instance—that a Proclamation is a very respectable thing when it is founded upon Statute. I should like to know upon what Statute the right hon. Gentleman's Government has proceeded in the cases where they have attempted to suppress public meetings in Ireland. No doubt, meetings may be illegal, and persons taking part in them may be guilty of illegal acts, for which they can be punished. Any persons so taking part can be brought to justice, and meetings, if they are illegal, can be dispersed; but I maintain that there is no power vested in a Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or in the Home Secretary in this country, either by Statute or Common Law, which, empowers either of them to prevent a meeting assembling, simply because they have reason to believe, from one source or another, that the meeting, if it assembles, will be an illegal meeting. Sir, I hold in my hand a Constitutional authority that was quoted often in the debate upon the Home Rule Bill—I mean Mr. Dicey's "Law of the Constitution." Mr. Dicey says that just because men may come where they like and say what they please, and have a right to hold meetings for the discussion of political and other topics, it is not, of course, meant that persons may so exercise that right of meeting as to break the law; and he adds that if a meeting is illegal, the persons taking part in it will be exposed to all the con-
  1164
  sequences. [An bon. MEMBER: Certainly.] The hon. Member does not comprehend my point. Perhaps, Mr. Courtney, the fog is thicker upon the Ministerial Benches than upon those upon which we sit. Mr. Dicey argues that if a meeting is illegal, a person taking part in it will be exposed to all the consequences in the way of having the meeting broken up and being arrested and prosecuted. My point is that if these meetings had been illegal, your proper course would have been to disperse them and to prosecute the men taking part in them; and that you have legally no power to send a force into a town and say—We will not allow such and such a meeting to assemble at all. What was the course of action taken by the Government? They issued Proclamations, in which they said that informations having been sworn and submitted by certain individuals that these individuals believed that a meeting about to take place will be an illegal one, therefore we prohibit the assembling of that meeting. Now, I will invite attention to this point. My first criticism of that portion of the Vote which is asked for police services in the preventing of these meetings assembling is, that that action on the part of the Government is absolutely illegal. Mr. Dicey says, further on, supposing, in England, that the Home Secretary thinks it is undesirable, for one reason or another, that a meeting should take place, and serves formal notice on every member that the meeting must not take place, this notice is so much waste paper; and he goes on to say that the whole principle upon which the Law of Public Meeting is based is that the function of the Government is not the prevention but the punishment of illegal acts. I find that, in Paterson's book on the Liberty of the Press and Free Speech, it is stated that there is—
  "No prohibition on account of the subject-matter of the meeting except for blasphemy or sedition, to which may be added"—
  COLONEL WARING: That's not—
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: I have heard that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is an authority on military matters, and his authority on those subjects may be very great, although I have also heard that he is only a feather-bed soldier; but I think he can scarcely be taken as an

  1165
  authority upon questions of law. I am simply quoting authorities on the question of public meeting, which enjoy the respect of everybody except the hon. and gallant Gentleman—
  "To which may be added that any assembly becoming riotous or unlawful in the sense of pursuing unlawful conduct, there is a mode of summary treatment."
  My point is, even if these meetings had been unlawful, which I deny—but even granting that—the Government acted illegally in attempting to prevent those meetings; their only legal course would have been, supposing the meetings to have assembled, to have dispersed them and to have prosecuted those persons who had taken part in them. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland made two or three selections, by way of proving that the meetings were unlawful. The first example that he gave was the case of the Sligo meeting. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was not ashamed to mention the name of Sligo. What was the Sligo meeting called for? It was to consider the question of a certain jury panel—a perfectly legal purpose—and that jury panel, when it was submitted to the test of examination by the Court, was quashed. I maintain that that meeting was not illegal, that it was a meeting called for a laudable and for a lawful purpose; and I say it is monstrous to state that a panel which the Judge quashed on the grounds of its illegality, could not be a fair question to be debated at a public meeting of the county where the illegal panel was struck. Then there was the meeting which was held at Coolgreaney, about which the right hon. Gentleman is certainly under some misapprehension. I wish to speak upon a point which, no doubt, will interest him. I hope he will not think I am using an offensive phrase—["No, no!"]—I try never to usesuch, though, perhaps, Members who interrupt have less consideration for me—when I say that I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is fooled to the top of his bent by his sub-officials in Ireland. Mr. Courtney, I took part in the proceedings at Coolgreaney, and the account which the right hon. Gentleman has given, I can assure him, is ludicrously inaccurate. He spoke about Mr. Dillon and myself driving about the country, and calling and holding
  1166
  hole and-corner meetings at long distances from the places where the proclaimed meeting was expected to be held. Now, I am perfectly acquainted with all the proceedings in this locality—as a matter of fact, I come from that part of the country myself, and I think it may be presumed that I am intimately acquainted with the geography of the district. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that five public meetings were held within a radius of three miles from the place, although mounted police patrolled the roads with instructions to gallop after any people whom they saw going in any direction. I can say—and I say so after a very large experience of public meetings—that there were at least 2,000 or 3,000 people present; there were to my own knowledge four brass bands, and there were a number of large banners carried by the people, some of whom came so far as from the town of Wex-ford—about 30 miles distant—in a special train, accompanied with a band playing and banners waving. How the police were completely ignorant of that meeting I can not make out; and how the right hon. Gentleman is able to assert that these meetings were composed of only a score or so of people, I am unable to understand. From whence came his information? There were no members of the Royal Irish Constabulary present. How, then, did the statements come to his knowledge? I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will believe me when I say that, as a matter of fact, the meeting at Coolgreaney was one of the largest meetings I ever addressed in the county of Wexford for many a day. When the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, said that the Coolgreaney meeting being proclaimed was not held, I told him that it was held, and that I myself made a speech at it. The right hon. Gentleman replied to me—"That is not the case." I retort now by saying "That it is the case." At Coolgreaney, about 5 o'clock in the evening, several cars full of persons, headed by a mounted escort, drove into the town. As we entered two large bodies of police were coming out, thinking we had no intention of holding the meetings. On this occasion, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), some of the constables in the ranks turned round and laughed at us; but their laugh was more

  1167
  at the Government than at us. We went into the town, and there we found a small body of policemen unarmed. We drove past them, and there—in the very public street—we held a meeting, with the hon. Member for the County Dublin in the chair, at which he, a clergyman, myself, and other persons spoke. After the meeting was finished, we walked along the street, and met half-a-dozen policemen coming up, who were exerting themselves in hustling the people; and, had it not been for the exertions of my hon. Friend the Member for Dublin County, these five or six policemen might have probably met with very rough handling from the crowd. Having stated these facts at, perhaps, unwarrantable length, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will do himself the justice to inquire into this matter. He has been misinformed; he has been inaccurately misled by an absurd story. Somebody is responsible for that, and I ask him to trace the responsibility. Another point with reference to this Coolgreaney meeting which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman was, that the object of that meeting was illegal; and he went on to enforce his statement by evidence which was to the effect that the Plan of Campaign was wrongfully adopted on the estate there; and that the landlord had always lived on good terms with his tenants until the hon. Member for East Mayo stirred up the people, and put the Plan of Campaign in operation against him. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the hon. Member for East Mayo had been induced to take that action in consequence of the appointment of an obnoxious agent. Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that Captain Hamilton, the agent of this property, was appointed to his position three years ago? Does he know any of the facts about the rents on this property, or the simple fact that the average of the rents on the property is 30 per cent above the valuation? Now, the average rent of every neighbouring estate is in or about the valuation; and the people of this property only asked for a reduction down to the valuation. I have in my hand some startling figures about two or three neighbouring estates. I find in the Return of the Land Commission for September and October in the county of Wicklow—Coolgreanoy being on the borders of Wicklow and Wexford—that
  1168
  on the property of Mrs. Bookey the old rent in one case was £40, the valualion£32, and the new judicial rent £21. Again, I find old rent £60, valuation £52, and new rent £43. On the property adjoining—the property of the Earl of Meath—I see the old rent is £7 10 s., the valuation £8 5s., and the new rent £5 10 s. On the property of Fitzwilliam Dick, adjoining, I read—old rent £400, valuation £248, and new rent £200. In the face of facts like these, I ask this Committee not to believe that the rents on the Coolgreaney estate are fair rents. They are exorbitant and impossible rents. I hope, accordingly, that nobody will pay the smallest attention to the anonymous story which the right hon. Gentleman told us about the tenant's wife with the purse. If he wants to make a point of that story, he needs to give his authority. He said that it was taken from the newspapers; and if it was taken from any fair-minded newspaper in Ireland, he would be only too delighted to give his authority. But it was evidently taken from The Daily Express, or some paper of that character, or, perhaps, some similar publication to that which the other day the right hon. and learned Home Secretary quoted, and afterwards repudiated—a publication of the so-called Irish Loyal and Patriotic League. I think it is an unworthy thing that the right hon. Gentleman refused to quote his inspiration. It was unworthy of him to bolster up his case with statements of an anonymous character, and that more especially because it is quite untrue that the hon. Member for East Mayo had anything to do with the starting the Plan of Campaign on the Coolgreaney estate. My hon. Friend never heard that the Plan was to be adopted until a deputation of the tenants came to him, and begged that somebody might be sent there to assist them. It was altogether the spontaneous action of the tenants on the estate; and I say that the conduct of the police in interfering with the meeting which was held for the purpose of exposing the rack-rents on the estate, was illegal and unconstitutional, and should not be sanctioned by a Vote of money in this House. I need not express the gratification with which I learn of the difficulties under which the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that he is suffering in defending his

  1169
  action in this matter. An hon. Friend tells me that the right hon. Gentleman alludes to a physical difficulty. I had not that in my mind just now: I merely referred to the political difficulties that he must experience in endeavouring to support the policy of the Government, which is un-Constitutional and utterly ineffective. I am glad the country is beginning to realize what is the result of the attempt to rule Ireland by a firm and resolute Unionist government. We have had six months of it, and now, in addition to the ordinary sum of £1,500,000, we are asked to vote £30,000 more for the Irish Constabulary to enable them to carry out this government. The Government is proving, day by day, their utter incapacity to understand the Irish Question. It is running the most enormous risks, and the further it goes on in the course it has laid down the greater will be the difficulties to be faced. To anyone who has read the history of Ireland, it is quite evident that the course of action on which the Government are entering can have only one ending—namely, the suppression of free speech, and the imprisonment of Members of this House and other popular leaders, and the meeting, face to face, of the people deprived of the weapon of open discussion, and without Members of this House being able to restrain them. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen who have never read a line of Irish history may laugh; but so sure as the sun will rise to-morrow, they will laugh very differently this day six months if the policy of the Government is carried out. The right hon. Gentleman sees that because his police and his government are ineffective, notwithstanding the enormous amount of money spent, he will have to come to this House and ask for further powers—further powers for what? To suppress crime? Why, the right hon. Gentleman knows that there has been within the past 50 years no single period of similar agrarian distress in Ireland when there has been less crime. He surely will not attempt to deny that statement; for it is a statement made publicly by the noble Lord the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill), when it suited his Party to say that Ireland was peaceful and tranquil. Why, then, are these new powers asked to suppress crime? They
  1170
  are not needed, and the Government knows that. Ah! they ask for these powers—and the right hon. Gentleman admitted the fact—in order to obtain convictions. But what convictions have the Government failed to obtain? The only notable case where convictions were not obtained was the case in Omagh, in the County Tyrone, where certain Orangemen were put on their trial for murder before a "Daniel come to judgment," in the shape of Judge Lawson, who actually told the jury that it was their duty to convict, and if they did not convict that they would violate their oaths. This was the solitary case where the Government failed to convict, unless their failure to convict my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo the other day in Dublin is meant. And as regards this case, there is not a man on the Benches of the House who does not know that the imprisonment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo is not the way to pacify Ireland or to maintain the public peace and order in that country. I am not sorry for the difficulties which beset the Government, and I know quite well that the road on which they have entered will land them in fresh difficulties. I think that the sooner they bring in their Coercion Bill, the sooner will come the crisis, which, when it does come, will open the eyes of the English people to the failure of the Government to rule our country; and to the impossibility of this or any other Government attempting to rule Ireland without paying regard to the sentiments and aspirations of the people. Then room will be made for a Government which prefers to base its rule upon conciliation, and upon the golden link of affection, instead of depending upon bayonets and bullets. ["Oh, oh!"] I repeat, upon the golden link of affection. You Gentlemen Opposite are having your innings. Try your bayonets and bullets, and we will see what the result shall be.
  MR. JAMES ELLIS: As the Members of the Committee have heard the opinion of the Irish Members, I should like, if they would allow me, to make a few remarks from the point of view of an English County Member. In this matter, I must confess it seems to me that the amount which was voted in the ordinary Estimates was a quite sufficient sum to keep down the people of Ireland. I under

  1171
  stand that this Vote is divided into throe portions. One portion was employed in suppressing the riots at Belfast; another was employed in sending police forces to attend meetings of the tenants; and the remaining portion was expended in efforts to collect the rents of the landlords of Ireland. I say that if this money—this enormous sum—must be expended in Ireland—that if, besides, it is just and right to expend it in Ireland, the Irish people themselves ought to pay for the expenditure. The people of Belfast ought to pay for the rioting expenses in Belfast; and if the landlords of Ireland have so managed their affairs that they are obliged to employ English bayonets in the collecting of their rents, the landlords themselves ought to pay for the employment of these bayonets. I also say that if it appears to the people of England, Scotland and Wales, that the people of Ireland are so rebellious against their Rulers that they must be kept down, and that bayonets and policemen must be sent, then the Irish people ought to pay for all this; for if they are guilty, the whole sum ought to be borne by them, and not thrown on the people of the United Kingdom. But I believe that, if we took the right way to govern Ireland, about £400,000 would be a sufficient amount for the police in Ireland. I believe the statements which have been made by the Representatives of the Irish people in this House, and that, if the country was ruled properly and fairly, very few soldiers or policemen would be required to enforce the law.
  MR. B. COLERIDGE: I think it is time that more than one Member in the House representing English constituencies should desire to say a few words in sympathy with the Irish Party. We are asked tonight to vote what I may call an extra-additional sum for the force of extra police in Ireland. Now, we on this side of the House find some difficulty in speaking upon this subject, because we are met with a plentiful lack of argument from hon. Gentlemen sitting on the opposite Benches. We have heard to-night from the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) a series of facts which have not been disputed, and which cannot be disputed, because they are true; and these facts, not being contradicted, tell a sad tale of the manner in which this money has been disposed of. There are two
  1172
  arguments usually brought forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite in this Committee upon the question of Supply when Irish matters are being dealt with. The one is, that the money has already been spent, and that therefore it is not right to embarrass the Government. That, however, is the old and stale argument which all persons who desire this great Empire to be economically administered will at once dismiss from their minds. The other argument is, that this money has been disposed of in the maintenance of law and of order. Sir, we have heard in what manner law and order has been maintained. I would ask any candid Member in this House whether we in England should stand for one moment the application of money to such purposes as these. Should we, I ask, spend any money on the suppression of public meetings? Should we stand and allow the maintenance of law by the means of soldiers, of bayonets, and of an armed police force. We should do no such thing. I venture to think that on the very last occasion in English history, at Manchester, in 1819, when English swords were used to break up public meetings, the feeling in this country was so unanimous, strong, and overwhelming that, from that day to this, no deliberate and organized attempt has been made to suppress the freedom of speech. I say that the measure we mete out for ourselves we should mete out for our fellow-citizens in Ireland. And yet it was said that the maintenance of law and order was involved in the suppression of freedom of speech and in the extortion, by the bayonet, of rents which the Government itself had declared to be unfair? When the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) brought in his Bill to deal with the question of Irish rents in the last Session, the argument was used in rejecting that Bill by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the facts which the hon. Member for Cork had adduced in supporting his Bill, though not denied, had not been fully or satisfactorily proved. These facts have now been proved by a Commission of the Government's own choice. It can no longer be said that these facts, which were known to the hon. Member for Cork, are not definitely known to the Government. What is the result of the Report of that Commission selected to order by the Government? It is this—

  1173
  that the money has been spent in the exaction of rents which the Report of the Commission showed were unfair, and should not be exacted. I ask, were law and order synonymous with the exaction of rents which a Commission had reported to be unfair? I say, that in order that law should be respected in any country, it should be consonant with justice. I ask whether, under the prostituted name of law, any greater or more substantial injustice has ever been inflicted? It is for these reasons, on behalf of an English constituency, that with voice and with vote I shall oppose this Vote for extra Constabulary in Ireland.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: We have passed a few hours in discussing this Vote from a very general point of view; but the bearings of the question of the Police Vote apply generally to the state of law and order in Ireland. I will detain the attention of the Committee for a few moments—I shall not be long—while I bring before it a specific case in which these extra police were engaged in a disturbance, and in dispersing a meeting that was perfectly legal in its objects and quite peaceable in its demeanour. Sir, at Cork, on December 1st of last year, a meeting took place in the streets of that city, which had for its object the expression of the opinion of the citizens of Cork of the scandalous state of things that existed in connection with the holding of the Munster Assizes in that city. Now, Sir, the object of this meeting was stated by myself a few days before at a meeting which I then addressed. For some time the citizens of Cork had to complain that at the Munster Winter Assizes which were held year after year in their city, they were called from their daily avocations in order to perform the duty of jurors at those Assizes. The Government know very well the reason why they held the Assizes annually at Cork. It was because, by a judicious packing of the juries, year after year, they were enabled to get convictions which seemed to be so desired by the Government in the present day. Well, Sir, the obsequiousness of the selected jurors of Cork was gaining for that city a most unenviable notoriety. The merchants of the city protested—and protested in vain—against their city being made the means by which the Government were able to
  1174
  carry out what I must style their iniquitous intention. The character of the city was spoken of all over the country. The trade of the city was being damaged, and the commercial men of Cork, who visited other towns throughout the country, began to be insulted and sent out of the houses of the shopkeepers because of the unenviable character that the city of Cork had obtained, owing to the manner in which these obsequious jurors obeyed the dictates of the Crown Prosecutor. Well, as I say, I addressed a meeting of the city, and I said that if we had held the meeting which was to have taken place on the Sunday previous it would have been suppressed, just as the Sligo meeting was suppressed. Why did they hold the Sligo meeting, and why had we intended holding a meeting in Cork? It was to insist that trial by jury in Ireland—that precious gem of the British Constitution—should get fair play. That was the object of the meeting about which I wish to inform the Committee. I believe, Sir, that for a meeting to be suppressed, it must be an unlawful one, or some people must have something to fear from the outcome of it. I believe, also, that it is necessary for a meeting to be unlawful, that it should threaten a breach of the peace. It will be my duty to show that the object of the meeting to which I am going to refer was perfectly lawful; that the mode in which it was carried, out did not threaten a breach of the peace, and that no one had anything to fear. The meeting was suppressed in the most flagrant and most outrageous manner. It was held on the occasion of the trial in the city of a man who is now famous in Ireland—namely, Tim Hurley. This trial was held on December 1st, and I wish to call the attention of the Committee to a meeting which was held the day before, a meeting of the most prominent citizens of Cork. The meeting was held in compliance with an influentially signed requisition, and was presided over by Mr. Alderman O'Brien, the Mayor-elect of the city. It was attended by many Members of this House and by many influential people amongst the merchants and traders of the city. At that meeting the following resolution was passed:—
  "That we, the Catholic jurors of Cork, in public meeting assembled, emphatically protest against the custom of the Crown officials at the

  1175
  Cork Assizes in ordering Catholic jurors to stand by after answering to their names in obedience to their summonses, and in view of the approaching Assizes we hereby determine to protest openly against this indignity inflicted on Catholic men in the event of the Law Officers attempting to repeat or perpetuate this insulting treatment."
  It was not alone in Cork that the Catholics had reason to complain of this system of packing juries. [Cries of "Question!"] I am endeavouring to show the necessity there was for this meeting and the lawful character of the assembly which was scattered by these extra police for whom we are asked to vote pay and rewards. I think it is absolutely necessary that I should prove the lawful character of this meeting to justify me in proposing, as I intend to propose, the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £1,000. A short time before that certain Catholic jurors in the county of Sligo in like manner met and protested against their Catholic fellow-countrymen being told to "stand by" by the Crown Officials. Therefore, it is that I and my hon. Colleagues the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), with other Members of this House who dwell in that city, took the opportunity of the assizes in Cork to protest, in the strongest manner, against this system of jury packing. And now I will proceed to relate what took place on the famous occasion to which I am drawing the attention of the Committee. The meeting assembled outside the Court House. The assizes had not then been opened. The Grand Jury had not been sworn. There was no reason why we should not hold the meeting. There was every reason why we should consider it our duty, bearing all the facts in mind, to protest against the system of jury packing. The meeting took place, and I proceeded to address it in the following manner—
  "We assembled the other day to demand justice, and we are assembled to-night to demand justice—to demand what the British Constitution itself concedes, to demand that justice will not be denied or delayed through anyone. Justice has been polluted at its source. It has been polluted within the four walls of that building (pointing to the Court House)."
  While I was proceeding in that fashion, a slight disturbance appeared to take place in the crowd, and having inquired into the nature of the disturbance, I found that some persons were objecting to the presence of the Government re-
  1176
  porter. I appealed to the people, and asked them not to interfere with Mr. Agnew, which was the reporter's name. I told the people to allow him to come on the car from which I was addressing the meeting, and they reluctantly did so. I said—
  "I want the Government reporter to listen to me; I want the Government to hear what Dr. Tanner and myself have to say to you."
  I was allowed to proceed no further, because, at this stage of the proceedings, the police came into this peaceable meeting, which was convened for a lawful purpose, and which was being conducted in a lawful and law-abiding manner—they came in, and I will relate what followed—
  "Almost at the same moment, District-Inspector Milling arrived, with as large a detachment of his braves as could be drawn off their beats at short notice. Upwards of 100 police were present."
  That was found not to be the fact, for there were only 30 or 40 police there. I remained standing on the steps of the car, when I was approached by Inspector Milling. He having spoken to me, I asked for his authority. He said he had no authority, and he immediately gave orders to the police who were with him to break up and disperse the meeting. Now, Sir, I will trouble the Committee by reading a few lines from The Cork Herald of that date, in order to enlighten the Committee as to the brutal manner in which the crowd was broken up—
  "The crowd was taken completely by surprise, and it is not to be wondered at that, unarmed as they were, the bayonets and batons of the police ruffians were effectual in scattering them on all sides. The conduct of these men, to whom it has been the custom to attribute at least a small measure of sympathy for their fellow-countrymen, though continuing under their dark tunic, was cruel in the extreme. They slashed and cut on all sides in a most indiscriminate fashion, as if they took delight in inflicting injury on unoffending people."
  This description goes on to point out that the gleam of steel was observable—
  "For the police did not disperse the meeting with batons only. Some of them used their batons, but others drew their swords and inflicted wounds of a most desperate character on the heads and the other parts of the bodies of the people. Their bayonets, too, were not idle, one unfortunate young man having got a thrust in the head, for which he was treated at the Infirmary. Their savagery passed all bounds, and the less the people seemed inclined

  1177
  for resistance, the more inclined the police seemed to he to attack them."
  I came in for a good deal of the battering myself. I went up to Mr. Milling, and asked him if he had authority to disperse the meeting, and he made me no reply. I pressed him for his authority, and the only answer I received was to be set upon by his brutal policemen, and only that I put my hands over my head, I would not be here to-night to tell the story. I was thrown to the ground, and kicked by these policemen. But, Sir, I will not depend alone on the statement of this newspaper I have quoted, for the description of this terrible onslaught on the part of the police. I will give you the description of a bystander. He says—
  "If there had been any notice given of the proceedings it would have been perhaps a modification of the offence, but there was no intimation given. Even when the crowd had entirely dispersed, any stray on-looker who presented himself within view was pounced on by several constables and beaten. I saw one man come to the Court-house on the eastern side, when four constables uttering loud curses set on him. 'Damn you, go on the wind,' said one, and the man was felled by a blow from a baton. He rose to his feet and rushed down St. George's Street, followed by three other policemen with drawn sabres. The reporters who were engaged in the peaceful performance of their duty were beaten. I was beaten myself with batons across the shoulders."
  I will not depend even on this witness who signs himself "Spectator;" but I will give an account of the occurrence from the mouth of an Englishman—a commercial traveller who witnessed the affair from the beginning almost to the end. This gentleman voluntarily came into Court, so outraged was he in every generous English feeling. He voluntarily, as I say, came into Court, and delivered his evidence in the following fashion:—Frank Edward Martin, a commercial traveller, deposed in answer to Mr. Adams—
  "I am an Englishman, and I arrived in Cork on the 1st December for commercial purposes. I followed the crowd to the Court-house, where some one commenced to address the people. I saw nothing at the time more than ordinary in a crowd in the street."
  He was asked whether the crowd was such a one as would be expected to create terror and alarm, and he answered in the negative, although he said that there certainly was a slight jostling, but he said that in a minute he saw drawn bayonets and truncheons coming
  1178
  on the heads of the people. The people, he went on to say, then ran away, and he himself executed a strategic movement to the rear. He declared that he saw no act to cause the police to charge, and that before they charged they gave no warning, that he heard, of their intention to do so. When asked if he should have heard the warning if one had been given, he replied that he must have heard it if it had been given, as he had heard the word of command given in England. This witness was a gentleman who had no connection with the city, beyond calling at houses of business there. He went out in the evening, probably to get a little fresh air, he was attracted to the Court-house by the crowd, and saw this wanton and brutal attack on the people by the police. He came to the Court to give evidence without being asked, and tendered his evidence in the fashion I have just described. I am sure that will go far towards convincing hon. Gentlemen opposite of the truth of the statement that I make that this meeting was most wantonly and brutally disturbed. I was about to trouble the House with other statements that would also go far with the House—the statements of hon. Members of this House—but I will not do so. I will trouble the House only with one statement, that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Cork. In an interview with a newspaper reporter, he said—
  "While I was interviewing Milling, I saw the police make another rush at Mr. O'Connor and his friends. I saw Mr. O'Connor struck again by a policeman. Dr. Tanner caught the policeman who struck Mr. O'Connor, and said he would get his number. The man tried to get away from Dr. Tanner, and without a single word of warning or the smallest justification, a policeman gave Dr. Tanner two blows on the head, the second of which felled him to the ground."
  He goes on to say—
  "I went and raised Dr. Tanner from the ground, and found him bleeding from the head. The blood poured down his face. I never saw such ruffianism displayed by a policeman."
  [Laughter.] I dare say this is very amusing to hon. tender-hearted Gentlemen—gallant Gentlemen—on the other side of the House, to find that two Members of this House, Representatives of the people—[Laughter]—yes, Representatives of the people, who have a better right to claim that title than those who got into their present posi-

  1179
  tions by very narrow majorities, and by the circulation very often of statements that were not strictly in accordance with the truth. Well, such was the meeting, such were its objects, and such was the manner in which it was disturbed. And what was the sequel to this disturbance of that meeting? Why, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) brought a charge against District Inspector Milling for assault—an unprovoked and unwarrantable assault, and a flagrant attack on the rights of the people. The case was brought into Court, it was laid bare in all its phases; it was investigated for a day or two, and what was the result? Why, that this man, this officer of police, who, according to his own statement in the Court, was in plain clothes and not on duty, and had no authority to disperse the meeting, was committed by the Cork bench of magistrates for trial. The Grand Jury, however, failed to send up a true Bill, and he is still unprosecuted. He has not yet been made amenable to the law that he has broken, though a prima facie case has been made out against him, and he has been returned for trial by the magistrates. What transpired on that investigation? Why that all the statements that I have made were proved to be true, not only on the sworn evidence of our witnesses, but also on the sworn evidence of the police themselves, who went into Court, and were obliged to admit the truth of every allegation that was made against them. Well, another case was brought on for investigation soon afterwards. A similar case was tried before a bench of magistrates. District Inspector Milling brought a charge against the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) and myself. What was the result of that case? Why, a bench of magistrates—a different one to that which adjudicated on the other case—actually refused to have information sworn against the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Cork and myself. Here you have two benches of magistrates. The one bench send District Inspector Milling forward for trial, and the other actually refuse to have information sworn against us. This proves the truth of our contention that a lawful meeting, carried out in a law-abiding manner, was broken up most illegally and brutally by the
  1180
  very policemen for whom we are now asked to Vote extra pay and rewards. I need not, I think, trouble the Committee by reading the evidence of District Inspector Milling himself, where he swore that he was in plain clothes, that he was not on duty that night, and that he had merely gathered up the beats that he could find, and proceeded to the meeting and dispersed it in an illegal manner. I may add for the information of the Committee, that he admitted, in cross-examination, that the Government reporter did not seem to be in danger. He admitted that I had taken him out of any apparent danger, that he was in the car with me, side by side with me, and that the crowd was not crushing him. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to-night spoke about the intimidation of jurors. The object of our meeting was to protest against the intimidation of jurors. The jurors of Cork, those of them who were of a sufficiently independent mind to be kept out of the jury box, were told to "stand by," and those who were put into the box were bull-dozed by Mr. O'Brien, and intimidated by every Judge who came to Cork. It was to protest against this state of things that we held our meeting. We wished to save the character of our city, that was being run down in consequence of proceedings like this. What has been the result of our agitation? Why that there was scarcely any fault to be found with the jury arrangements at the last Assizes. It was this, that even the Solicitor General for Ireland himself, except in two cases that occurred before my eyes, did not dare to have a jury in the box. It was this, that those who were brought to Cork from all parts of Munster, and even from Con-naught, to be tried at the Winter Assizes got something like fair play. I will give an instance in which a young gentleman got something like fair play.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now travelling entirely beyond the Vote.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Well, I will leave that subject, Sir. I merely wished to point out the result of the agitation. The agitation has been amply justified, and I was about to prove it to the Committee, and to point out how erroneous it was for the police to interfere in the matter. However, I will merely say, as I have already pointed out, that our

  1181
  meeting was perfectly lawful. The mode in which we conducted it could not be found fault with by any reasonable person. My hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Redmond) pointed out by quoting the most reliable authority that can be referred to, that we had the right of public meeting. We were unquestionably within our right. We hold, Sir, and I believe that the English people are very strong on that point, that public meeting is the bulwark of the British Constitution, and that fair trial by jury is one of its gems. We hold that in exercising our right of public meeting and that in protesting that trial by jury should get fair play in Ireland, we were perfectly within our right. In doing this—in so protesting—we were interfered with by the police and their officers, or rather, by what is known as police, but which I would prefer to stigmatize simply as "organized ruffianism." We were interfered with by that organized system in the exercise of our undoubted right. In consequence of this interference with our right I intend to move the reduction of this Vote by £1,000. This is a specific charge that I bring against the police authorities in Ireland and against the Government; and, in order to emphasize my protest against the manner in which the right of public meeting in Ireland is interfered with; in order to enter my protest against the manner in which hon. Members in this House have been outraged in the performance of what they conceive to be their duty, I beg to move that this Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,000—the expenses of the police force in Cork.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the reduced sum, not exceeding £29,960, be granted to Her Majesty for the said Service."—(Mr. John O' Connor.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I should like, Sir, to say a few words on the Amendment, now that the hon. Gentleman has attacked, not the Government, but the police authorities of Cork. The hon. Gentleman has stated the case very plainly to the Committee. He has stated that he and his Friends took the opportunity of an approaching trial of a well-known character in the South of Ireland (Tim Hurley), at the assizes to be held on the
  1182
  following day, to summon a public meeting, the evening before, at the Courthouse, as the hon. Member said, to "influence" the Cork jurors. Now, what he calls "influence" I should call "intimidate." That, and nothing else, was the object of the meeting, and that being so, the divisional magistrates and the police authorities in Cork were absolutely right in the step that they took in discharge of their duty. Naturally, meetings cannot be dispersed without the use of some force; and I dare say some persons got a few knocks with batons, and it served them perfectly right.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I rise to Order, Mr. Courtney. I did not summon the meeting at all; nor did I try to influence the jurors. We merely went to meet Tim Hurley.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The lion. Gentleman will have an opportunity of replying.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The hon. Gentleman has told the Committee so already; and, as to not influencing jurors, why, in every word he uttered he admitted that that was his object. He spoke of what he was pleased to call the unpopularity which he thought jurors had obtained in every case in Ireland. He spoke of how Cork merchants found themselves interfered with in their dealings on account of that unpopularity. I should say they have been Boycotted simply because the jurors in Cork gave verdicts according to their oaths. It was the object of the hon. Member (Mr. J. O'Connor), as he has told the Committee, to interfere with the action of the jurors in County Cork. Now, Sir, I consider that the meeting was properly dispersed by the police. I do not believe a word of the stories of the excessive violence of the police. I believe the police did their duty and nothing more; and I warn the hon. Member, and others who act in the same way in Ireland, that if something worse than raps of batons result from such proceedings on their part they are the people who will have to take the responsibility. [Cries of "Go and lead the police, then!" and "That is your policy!"]
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: That is a threat.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is a threat to murder.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Well, Sir, it is no threat.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is a threat to murder. [A pause.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must ask the hon. Member for Liverpool to withdraw that expression.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not know what observation. The only observation I made was that "That is a threat."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I meant the hon. Member who said "That is a threat to murder."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I did not make use of any such expression. [Cries of" Healy!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for North Longford, then. [Cries of "Withdraw!"]
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Do not do anything of the kind.
  MR. T. M. HEALY and Mr. PARNELL,rising together,
  MR. PARNELL: On a point of Order, Mr. Courtney, I wish to ask you, Sir, whether you derived your information with regard to the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) from your own hearing and knowledge, or from the information, of hon. Members below the Gangway on the Conservative side of the House?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows very well that is not a point of Order. I heard the voice of the hon. Member (Mr. T. M. Healy); but I had forgotten at the time for what constituency he sat. I must ask the hon. Member for North Longford to withdraw that observation.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Mr. Courtney, my respect for the fairness with which you always conduct these proceedings at once induces me to withdraw the observation.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: What I was saying—
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman in the observations he made before you called myself and my hon. Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) to Order, used what I regard as a threat against Members of this House. To be more precise, Mr. Courtney, I will give you my recollection of the threat he employed. He said that in certain eventualities, certain members of this
  1184
  House would not be struck with batons, but with something worse.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I heard the right hon. Baronet say that if, under certain circumstances certain persons were struck with something more serious than batons, the responsibility would be on themselves.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHrose, whereupon—
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise to Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is no point of Order.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: [Cries of "Withdraw!"] I have nothing to withdraw.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: You have threatened Members of this House.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I did not threaten Members of this House.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Yes, you did.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool to exercise some self-control.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I have warned hon. Members what will be the result of their proceedings if they are carried on in the same spirit. I have said that they might result is something more serious than blows from batons. I may remind hon. Members of what happened the other day. I had to answer a question as to the conduct of police at evictions at Leitrim, where, owing to the action of the people there, excited as I believe by speeches made by hon. Members of this House, the police had actually to fire upon the crowds, causing wounds, but fortunately nothing worse. The result of that was that the crowds dispersed, and that the law was carried out. As a further result, the Sheriff asked for the services of a great force of police to assist him in evictions in the same neighbourhood. The first evictions having been successfully carried out, in spite of the incitement to resistance made by certain persons—I do not know who—["Where?"] In Leitrim. [Mr. DILLON: Nine of us were in County Leitrim at the time.] In spite of the incitement made, and these evictions having been successfully carried out, word was sent to the police to-day by the Sheriff that he did not require any force to carry out further

  1185
  evictions, because the tenants had come in and paid their rents. Now, Sir, all I have to say is this—that whether it be with batons, or in whatever way it be, the law must be enforced. With reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor), I just wish to remind the Committee that not one single word of his speech, nor of his Amendment, has the slightest relation to the Vote which is before the Committee. This is a Vote for extra pay and conveyance of the police on the occasions, amongst others, of those evictions where the police have been summoned together from great distances to form a protecting force for the Sheriff. The matter to which the hon. Member alluded was the dispersal by the police of a meeting in the City of Cork itself, and in respect of which there was not a single penny expended in extra pay. It was not my business to interrupt the hon. Member in his speech; but I may say, now, it is to be regretted that the hon. Gentleman should have wasted the time of the Committee by referring to a subject in regard to which I believe not one single penny is included in the Vote.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) could have been here when I began my statement, or else he would have known that, to put myself in Order, I stated that the dispersal of the meeting was carried out by extra police who were brought into the City of Cork for the purpose of doing the work. They were there in every respect connected with the agrarian movement. The force employed was not the City force; indeed, in their interviews and conversations with the citizens of Cork for weeks afterwards, the City Police were continually impressing upon the citizens the fact that they were not at the meeting at all. Again, Sir, I have to protest against the perversion of my statement. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) says that I called the meeting to influence the jurors. In the first place, I called no meeting, and I said so; but I took the opportunity, on the arrival of Tim Hurley, to protest against the jury packing. That is an entirely different thing to influencing the jurors. I did not call the meeting, and my language was carefully guarded; and, in order to
  1186
  set myself right with the House, I have read the language I used. I merely asked for fair play, for trial by jury—I asked for the benefit of the British Constitution. Surely, in doing what I did I ought to have the praise, and not the blame, of the Government of England.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHrose to address the House, but was received with cries of "Divide, divide!" and much interruption.
  MR. PARNELL: You have not got the clôture yet.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: I am not sure, Mr. Courtney, whether I shall be doing a kindness to hon. Members opposite if I remind them that, at the present moment, the New Rules of Procedure have not been passed, and that it does not follow, because there has been a universal silence on that side of the House so far as this debate is concerned—[Cries of "Divide!"]—it does not follow, because there has been almost universal silence on that side of the House—[Renewed interruption.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: It does not follow that, because there has been almost universal silence on that side of the House, and that the arguments from this side have been as yet unanswered, there is no occasion for debate on the subject. It is true that the amount of this Vote is not a large one, and, looked at from one point of view, the time of the Committee has been spent, perhaps, to very small advantage in pursuing the discussion so far. But, Mr. Courtney, when we look at the purposes for which this money is to be voted, then even the small sum of £30,000 assumes rather an infinitely more serious aspect. There are many new Members in this House on both sides, and to many of them it may appear that a small Supplementary Vote of £30,000 might be passed in silence; but older Members may remember that upon the main Vote for the Irish Constabulary, amounting to £1,500,000, there was a general protest from all parts of the House against so enormous an expenditure. We are now, to-night, voting an increase upon that original sum of £1,500,000. Mr. Courtney, there are many Members of this House—[Cries of "Divide!"] Mr. Courtney, if I am not allowed to proceed, I shall be under the necessity of moving that you do report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: If I am allowed to proceed, I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the different heads of the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), in the explanation which he made in the earlier part of the evening, made a reference to the Belfast riots. That reference was a very short one. The right hon. Gentleman did not go beyond the first step to explain that a large portion of the Vote was for the Belfast riots. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman might have given us some additional information as to the way in which the money was spent, and the necessity for the expenditure, and as to his own opinion of the proceedings in Belfast. He might have indicated, too, the wealth of the inhabitants of that city who have given so much countenance to the spirit of riot in the North of Ireland, and that they ought to have been made responsible for this expenditure rather than that it should have been levied upon the general taxpayers of the country. I am sorry the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor) has moved to reduce this Vote by the sum of £1,000. I think the whole sum might have been objected to, so far as it is an additional charge placed upon the general taxation of the country; and I, for my part, shall not hesitate to give not only my vote, but my voice emphatically against this extra taxation. Where is this expenditure to stop? It was observed that when we had got a force in Ireland costing the country £1,000,000 sterling, we had a force, supplemented by the military, ample for all purposes of maintaining what is called law and order. To-night, the Government have through the month of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) confessed that all this machinery is insufficient for the purpose of maintaining law and order; and they have announced that it is their intention very shortly, or after they have obtained the passage of the rigid Rule of Closure, to ask for additional powers for the government of Ireland. If that be so, it is useless to grant this additional sum, and the sooner a protest is made the better. The right hon. Gentleman, in commenting upon the action of the hon. Member for Tipperary and others who took part in
  1188
  the Cork and other meetings, said that the intention of those Gentlemen and the object of the meeting was to intimidate the jurors. If similar steps had been taken to pack juries in England, in the same way that Irish juries are packed, all your police—[Cries of "Divide, divide!"] Mr. Courtney, as I am not allowed to proceed, I beg to more that you do now report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Illingworth.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to say, Mr. Courtney, that I intend to vote for this Motion, and my reason i3 the repeated interruptions by which the speeches of the hon. Member (Mr. Illingworth) and other hon. Gentlemen have been met by a number of Members who have recently come into the House. I may add that any further Motion of the same kind which is elicited by the same course of conduct will have my support.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am sure the Committee will feel it is quite impossible that we can consent to report Progress at this time of the night (12.10). Great interest has been shown in this debate, and the Committee will, no doubt, listen to the few observations the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Illingworth) has to make; but we must ask the Committee to give a Vote with as little delay as possible.
  MR. PARNELL: I am very glad, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Smith) has thought it necessary to rebuke his disorderly Followers. It is not the habit of the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) to speak at length upon the Irish, or any other question, and I certainly think that the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite might have waited until the hon. Member had finished his speech before they selected him as a mark for their disorderly interruptions. However, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have now received a rebuke from their Leader, I hope the future conduct of those Gentlemen will not render it necessary for the hon. Member for Bradford to persevere with his Motion for Progress.
  MR. ILLING WORTH: I beg to withdraw the Motion, on the understanding that lion. Gentleman above the Gang-

  1189
  way opposite will accede to the appeal made to them by their Leader.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the reduced sum of £29,960 be granted to Her Majesty for the said Service."
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: Mr. Courtney, when I was interrupted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I was observing, in reply to what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said, that it was a deliberate attempt to influence juries. Now, Sir, I venture to submit to the Committee that if the same system of packing juries existed in England as has prevailed sadly too long in Ireland, not only all the police in England, but all the military as well, would be insufficient to prevent the people of this country from attending public meetings, and upsetting not only the juries thus set up, but also the Government which defended them. Now, Mr. Courtney, it is not denied by the Government that there has been less disorder in Ireland during the last few months than has been the case for years. Under these circumstances we are entitled to ask how it is that all this money has been spent. The secret of the whole matter is, that the Government has countenanced a system of jury-packing against which any people who desire any form of Constitutional freedom are called upon to protest. Sir, for my part, I protest against the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and I venture, humble Member of this House as I am, to give the right hon. Gentleman a warning. Pointing to the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. John O'Connor), who had told the Committee that he had himself felt the blows of the batons of these ruthless police, the right hon. Gentleman said the hon. Member must look for not only blows from batons, but for something mere serious. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman afterwards put the threat in a milder form; but I would say that no Member of this House, no Minister of the Crown who has such responsible duties to discharge as the right hon. Gentleman has, ought to take up such an attitude as he has adopted, and to make use of such covert threats to Members of the House, or to anybody else. It is evident that a spirit is developing which bodes no good for freedom of debate in this House; but, as long as we are entitled to speak, I wish
  1190
  to say—and I believe that I am speaking for many Members both above and below the Gangway—that we have abandoned all faith in this system of coercion, whether it be carried out by the police or by the military, and that, therefore, we are called upon consistently to oppose the Vote, and all Votes of a like character, intended to maintain, not Constitutionalism in Ireland, but the spirit of tyranny which the Irish Members, assisted by a large number of Members of this House, as I believe they will soon be by the great body of the British people, are desirous to overthrow. We have only to ask whether Ireland is receiving the same treatment as that which is accorded to the rest of the Empire. Gentlemen opposite tell us it is. Well, I wish to see some evidence of it. Unfortunately, we see accumulating proof in every direction that the very opposite spirit is prevalent in the counsels of the Government. There was a melancholy exhibition of this spirit a short time ago. When the hon. Member for Tipperary was referring to his own experience at the hands of the police, and to the experience of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), there was upon the faces of the Law Officers of the Government evidence of the most ill - timed hilarity. Surely, under such circumstances, a certain amount of gravity would have better become the most responsible positions of those Gentlemen. I think that the unseemly manner in which they exhibited their feelings to the House was an unfortunate indication of the spirit in which they would approach their duties as Law Officers of the Crown. I confess myself grieved at the display of such a spirit from such a quarter.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Courtney, I do not think any time should be lost, on the part of the Irish Members, in taking notice of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. You, Sir, for the first time since you have been in the Chair, thought it right to call me to Order, and I submitted to your ruling with that deference which is always due to the unfaltering courtesy and constant fairness which you always exhibit. But when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland rises in this House, shakes his hand in the face of the Irish Members, and with a face and a voice distorted by passion, and, in such close connection

  1191
  with, words addressed to an hon. Member, uses threats as to proceedings in Ireland, I think I have some excuse for losing my self-control. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman had the grace to withdraw the first part of his remarks, in which he was answered by the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary. That statement was, that my hon. Friend, taking part in a meeting in Cork, was attacked by the police with batons; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary immediately proceeded to say that my hon. Friend fully deserved what he got; and immediately added that if hon. Members were to take part in like proceedings they would have something worse than batons to deal with. ["No, no!"] Now, Mr. Courtney, that was the statement as I understood it; that was the statement as it was understood by hon. Members around me; that was the statement as it was understood by hon. Members above the Gangway opposite. It may not be the statement as it was understood on the opposite side below the Gangway, because hon. Gentlemen there have been so busy in attempting to interrupt the proceedings of the Committee that they may be forgiven for a somewhat misleading recollection of the proceedings. But supposing that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to use the threat against us. He may have meant it or not, that is his affair. We are quite able to meet any threats he may make. But if we adopt the gloze which the right hon. Gentleman put upon it when, by resuming his seat upon a point of Order raised by one of my hon. Friends, he was able to collect his scattered senses—if it be not a threat against the Irish Members, it is a threat of bayonets and bullets against the Irish people. What does that mean? It means that the right hon. Gentleman—one of the Leaders of the Unionist Party—tells the people of Ireland that it is his intention to mow them down with bullets and bayonets. And for doing what? For defending their hearths and their homes, and their farms against rents the injustice of which has been denounced by his own Royal Commission. And that is the message of peace which the present Government has to substitute for that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). I tell the right hon.
  1192
  Gentleman that he may exasperate the Irish people; but that better men than he have failed to terrorize them. We have had to deal with a real Cromwell. Mantalinis, masquerading as Cromwells, will not frighten us.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like, Mr. Courtney, to make a remark with reference to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has proceeded entirely on the assumption that the police will act in a certain manner, altogether apart from the question whether they have the least ground for their proceedings or not. I would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) whether he accepts the doctrine which his right hon. Colleague the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has laid down with regard to the action of police at meetings in Ireland? The interpretation I place upon the right hon. Gentleman's language is that if the Duke of Saxe-Weimar, or any military gentleman of that description, issued a Proclamation declaring that, in his opinion, an illegal assembly was taking place, it would be the duty of the police to disperse it at all hazards. Now, is that the law?—because the principle which the Government are proceeding on has been repudiated over and over again by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). The last occasion on which he repudiated it was in reference to the Orange riots at Cleator Moor. The Orangemen went into Cleator Moor with banners and guns and pikes, and an information was sworn that there was going to be an illegal assembly which might lead to a breach of the peace. In the pages of Hansard, of the 15th of July, 1884, the extraordinary proceedings which took place there are described. Questions were asked of the then Home Secretary as to whether it was his intention to proclaim the meeting. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) stated, in reply, that on the 13th of December, 1867, the following message was sent from the Home Office to the Clerk of the County Justices, Liverpool:—
  "Issue proclamations similar to that by the borough; collect county police; ask assistance of borough police; swear in special constables; give notice to military authorities; apply to

  1193
  Orange leaders to stop their meeting and procession; apply to Roman Catholic clergy to dissuade the people; do everything in your power to prevent a collision and breach of the peace; to do this you are justified in preventing meetings and stopping processions: let the people know that they are stopped on these grounds. Magistrates are not to be bound by this, but must exercise their own discretion, depending on locality where a meeting is held and numbers attending, force they have at their disposal, and other elements that cannot be known to the Secretary of State. Note—This telegram was sent after a personal consultation with Sir John Karslake, who attended at the Home Office and settled it."
  Now, Sir, that was what was said in 1867. What was the law as interpretated by the late Home Secretary the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in 1884? He was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), as to why, that being the state of the law, the Government did not interfere with the Orangemen at Cleator Moor? What did the right hon. Gentleman say? He said—
  "The series of Questions put by the hon. Member is founded entirely on a misapprehension of the province of the Executive Government in such matters. In England, the Executive Government is not the conservator of the peace. The conservation of the peace is entrusted to the magistrates in the different localities for which they have jurisdiction. They are the conservators of the peace, and the Executive Government and the Secretary of State have no authority to give any orders whatever to the magistrates in this matter. The Government and the Home Secretary have no authority over the local police either in the counties or in the boroughs. That is a fundamental proposition which seems sometimes not to be understood."
  The right hon. Gentleman added—
  "The ground upon which we acted seemed to me to be a reasonable ground. It was this—that it is easier to prevent processions from forming than to deal with an excited mob after a collision has occurred. That was the principle on which we advised the magistrates, and on which they acted, and with the best effect. It was adopted with the advice of the English and of the Scotch Law Officers of the Crown, and it prevented collisions in a number of cases in Liverpool and Glasgow in connection with Orange processions; and it was also useful in preventing disturbances arising out of the proceedings of the Salvation Army. But, unfortunately, the doctrine on which it was based was challenged. In a particular case, the magistrates ordered that a meeting should not be held, on the ground that information had been sworn that there was danger of a breach of the peace; and the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court declared that the magistrates had no authority to stop a meeting in these circumstances. Consequently it was not possible to
  1194
  tender the same advice to the magistrates in these matters."
  The right hon. Gentleman also said—
  "Therefore, I say, since that decision the power to stop processions on these grounds seemed to be put an end to, and they could not be prohibited; and then the question arose, what are the magistrates to do?"
  Now, Sir, that is reported in Hansard of July 15, 1884; vol. ccxc, pp. 1119–20–21–22. I should like to know if, in face of that opinion, the Government propose to stop meetings in Ireland, under what power they intend to act? When the Liberal Government stopped meetings, they first obtained statutory power, under the Crimes Act, to do so. If statutory power was needed by the Liberal Government, why do not the Conservative Government want it? If, in 1884, it was necessary to have a special clause in the Crimes Act to enable the Government of that day to put a stop to meetings in Ireland, I would like to ask from whence do the present Government obtain authority to stop meetings? Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary plainly what will happen. I tell him this—and I say it advisedly—that if policemen come to disturb a meeting and fire on it, the people, if they have weapons, will be fully entitled to use them against the disturbers of the meeting. And when these threats are used by the Government, let them beware of the effect of them upon the Irish people. At present, the people are going unarmed to their meetings. Now, there are a number of domestic utensils and agricultural implements which it is quite likely, if the people believe that illegal action is being perpetrated against them, they will think they have a right to apply against the police. And when the people know that the Orange Party in Ireland were advised to go to public meetings with what were called their "sweethearts," when they know that noble Lords, brothers of Cabinet Ministers, sons of Lords Lieutenant, signed Proclamations advising the Orangemen to go armed to their meetings, because they were being illegally proclaimed; it is quite likely that the Irish people may take it into their heads that that which is lawful and proper for the Orange Body to do may be lawful and proper for them to do. I hope the Irish people will take no such course, unless

  1195
  the proceedings threatened by the Government are carried out. But if in the dispersal of any meeting you shoot down one single man, I tell you, take the consequences. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary no doubt finds it very easy, in the calmness of the Irish Office, to give his orders. He is thinking not of the Irish people, but of the effect of his language on the English constituencies, and of what will benefit his miserable Party. He is thinking, "Will a little bloodshed in Ireland cement the Liberal alliance?" [Cries of "Shame" and "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is going beyond the limits of Parliamentary debate.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. The Speaker has ruled that the expression "Shame" is out of Order. I ask you whether you caught that expression?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Very likely; it is out of Order. Mr. Healy.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should regret it, Sir, if any interpretation I have put on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary should incur the censure of the Chair. [Cries of "Withdraw!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who say "Withdraw" had better remove the Chairman and get into the Chair themselves.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Withdraw.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman opposite interrupts me. The right hon. Gentleman left a certain Government, I believe. The right hon. Gentleman was not included in the next Government. I do not think that if there were a vacancy in the Chair the right hon. Gentleman would get the appointment. The question I rose to ask the Government was this—
  MR. CHAPLIN: Mr. Courtney, I wish to ask you, as a point of Order, whether you did not call the attention of the hon. and learned Member to the fact that the expressions he made use of went beyond Parliamentary license, and whether, under these circumstances, the hon. and learned Gentleman is not bound to withdraw them.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I said as much to the hon. and learned Member, and he expressed regret for having used them.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman is making a bad beginning in Chairmanship. Well, Mr. Courtney, I ask the Government whether they are prepared to say that there is a law in Ireland different from the law existing in England as to the right of putting down public meetings. The Irish people know that these meetings cannot be put down, and that the Liberal Government had to obtain statutory powers in order to put them down. Why, Sir, if the Government are right in putting down these meetings, how is it that they do not arrest and prosecute every person taking a part in them. If the Government have power to issue proclamations of meetings, it follows that every person acting in breach of those proclamations is acting illegally. Why do they not prosecute my hon. Friends who take part in such meetings? If they are illegal everybody who attends them ought to be prosecuted. What are called "the poor dupes" ought to be prosecuted. It appears that there are 5,000,000 of dupes in Ireland. Everyone in Ireland is a dupe, I believe, unless he is an Orange Lord. Why, I ask, do not the Government give effect to their belief in the legality of their action? I think that the indisposition from which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said he was unhappily suffering must have rather got into his head to-night. I make that suggestion as an explanation of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, because nobody boasted more than he did of his desire to carry out—
  MR. GEDGE: I rise to Order. The hon. and learned Member—[Ironical cheers from the Home Rule Benches.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Mr. Gedge.
  MR. GEDGE: The hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), who sits opposite to us, perpetually interrupts us; and during the last minute he called out, "Order below the Bar—the Criterion bar!" I ask you, Mr. Courtney, whether that is in Order?
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is no question of Order.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is somewhat difficult, Mr. Courtney, I will not say to follow the thread of one's remarks, but to have any thread in them at all, in

  1197
  face of the persistent interruptions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, when they get up and address you, do not seem to know what they are interrupting about. What I have to ask the Government is this—and I would put my question rather to the calm and logical mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), than to the excited mind of the Chief Secretary for Ireland—what I have to ask the Home Secretary is, whether he adheres to the declaration of the law made by his Predecessor in Office; and, if so, whether he will say that the law in England with respect to public meeting is different from the law in Ireland, the common law of both countries being presumably alike? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says there is any difference, I would ask him, where it is to be found, and of what it consists? This is a question which, I think, admits of an easy and satisfactory answer. The Government declare that they are entitled by law to put down meetings in Ireland. We say they are not, and we ask them to point to a single judicial decision which, in the least, supports their contention that they have the right to proclaim meetings, or to prosecute anybody attending them. Why, if they had a right to put down these meetings, would they not proceed against those who attended them? It makes it all the more horrible to have threats used by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary against the Irish people, when the illegality is altogether on his side. The right hon. Gentleman, in my opinion, has entirely lost control over his feelings on this occasion. I have attributed the fact to physical causes. [Cries of "Question!"] That explanation does not seem to be satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. Of course, if it is not due to physical conditions, I never could attribute it to mental conditions. But whether it be due to physical or mental causes, the Government have made to-night a statement of the most serious gravity, which cannot fail to have a far-reaching effect upon what they describe as law and order in Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite—some of whom are neophytes—seem to suppose that we have not been subjected to this kind of thing before. I remember very well exactly similar speeches being made
  1198
  by an Irish Secretary under similar conditions, whether mental or bodily I will not specify. Our constant experience is that the excitement which we now see below the Gangway opposite is never kept up for any lengthened period, and, after a few years, hon. Members who have been so enthusiastic in cheering their Chief Secretary for Ireland are quite willing to leave him in the lurch and in the mud. Now, Sir, the present Chief Secretary cannot be expected to make the experience of any previous Chief Secretary his own experience; but, at all events, he must be aware that in any course he may feel called upon to take in regard to putting down rightful meetings in Ireland, he is certain to meet with a speedy retribution. The right hon. Gentleman is not supported now as other Chief Secretaries, who have preceded him, were supported by a homogenous Party. On the contrary, he is supported by a Party many of whom do not agree on the policy that should be adopted towards Ireland, and others of whom would only be too anxious to fly at his throat, the moment they found out his mistakes were such as would enable the Liberal Party to be restored on the ruins of its Predecessor. I submit, Sir, that when we find the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary using, as he has done in the course of this debate, language of the extraordinary nature which we, on those Benches, attribute to him—we may be wrong—in initiating a policy of the kind he has indicated, he has opened up a line of debate in which we sitting here have a right to enter. We say that, seeing the right hon. Gentleman has said to Members of this House—"You have already been attacked by the baton; but there are other weapons, which are much more far reaching, and which may be fatal to you next time," he has introduced considerations which we think fully warrant us in prolonging this debate until we can obtain from him or some other Member of the Government language of greater clearness indicative of what is the exact policy the right hon. Gentleman intends to carry out. The policy announced by the right hon. Gentleman to-night is a policy which I presume is not entirely his own. I should like to ask the very pacific First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) whether he approves of the policy of his Colleague, which we

  1199
  Irish Representatives regard as a policy of bloodshed. It may not have been so intended by the Government; but I would ask, in reference to the mere shred of legality which is assumed on the basis of the Viceregal Proclamation—the legality of which we impugn—would hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway allow men in England, under a similar state of the law, to be shot down, or threatened to be bayoneted, without admitting the responsibility attaching to such a course? Admitting that the late Liberal Government did proclaim a number of public meetings, they did so under statutory authority; while in England it has been judicially declared that the Government have not the power to put down an Orange meeting with bands of music and people firing shots from firearms. If that is the state of the law in regard to England, I ask is it not unfair to us to say that you will use the law, as you threatened to do in Ireland, until it has been clearly defined judicially or statutorily? What we say is, that if any portion of the Irish population is shot down in consequence of the view announced by the Chief Secretary, any blood that may thus be spilt would be entirely upon the heads of Her Majesty's Government. I should very greatly deplore any consequences of this kind, because no matter how right the Irish people may be, and no matter how wrong the Government may be, the Irish people are always placed in the wrong by the English newspapers. "Whatever happens, the English newspapers invariably misrepresent them; and I think it would be almost better for the people to put up with wrong or illegality than that the Government should have the chance of misrepresenting the course they may take in Ireland. At the same time, my mind cannot but be moved by considerations which I believe influence the Irish people. It may be that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was a merely harmless threat; and, if that were so, it certainly was a most unfortunate and unhappy course for the right hon. Gentleman to have taken. But if what he said was seriously intended, then I say it may be followed by the most serious consequences. People in Ireland will believe the statement made by the Chief Secretary, and in the state of the law laid
  1200
  down in regard to England; and they will think they have a perfect right to meet in public assembly, and, in so doing, to resist the police, whether they are in uniform or not, should they attempt to disperse them. That, at any rate, will be their belief. That belief has not yet been tested in a Court of Law, and I, for one, hope it will not be tested in a Coroner's Court, which, undoubtedly, is the Court to which the Chief Secretary would seem to appeal. I would say that no more cold-blooded incitement to a course which, at the best, is in all probability one of the greatest illegality, was ever addressed by an Irish official to an armed body like the Irish Constabulary. The Irish police go to these public meetings with arms in their hands, and often arrive there after long marches through the country, some of them probably being very tired and fatigued, having stopped for refreshment at the only place where they can get it—the nearest public-house. To-morrow morning you will have these men all over the country reading in the newspapers that an Irish Member was told in this House by the Chief Secretary for Ireland—"The next time you do such-and-such a thing, it is not batons you will get, but buckshot." That, in the opinion of the generality of Irish police constables, will be a mandate from his superior officer to commit bloodshed—I might say murder; but you, Sir, have ruled that it is out of Order to say in this House that an hon. or right hon. Gentleman's statement is an incitement to murder, although it has not been ruled out of Order to offer an incitement to murder. In fact, it seems to come to this—that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is entitled to use language which we say is calculated to foment disorder in Ireland, or lead to illegal procedure on the part of the police; and we, on these Benches, are not entitled to characterize such a course by the only language that can fitly be applied to it. This is a matter we cannot but deplore; and I would advise the right hon. Gentleman in future, when he has a policy to lay down in this House, to endeavour to lay it down in language that will not be open to the terrible misinterpretation which, on the present occasion, has been attached to his words. Certainly, the language the Chief Secretary has employed is not the

  1201
  sort of language which ought to be used in this House. If the First Lord of the Treasury were to say to the humblest Member of the House, speaking of something that may have occurred in Yorkshire—"You have had batons already, but you will have guns next," the whole House would rise up against such a statement. Why, then, is a different tone to that which would be adopted towards English Members to be resorted to in the case of the Irish Representatives? The very fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself is not an Irishman, that he is not of our blood, and race, and religion, ought to make him more scrupulous in dealing with the Irish Members, He dare not, in fact, address to English Members language he has not scrupled to address to the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor). I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to tell any English Member "that if he has been batoned already, something worse will happen next time." The Committee ought to remember what it was that happened in this case. The hon. Member for Mid-Cork (Dr. Tanner) received a blow on the head, and was also kicked, and the policeman who kicked and beat him was returned for trial for the assault; but the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland refused to send up an indictment to the Grand Jury. That having been done, and my hon. Friend (Mr. J. O'Connor) having complained of an illegality of this character, the Chief Secretary for Ireland not only justifies it, but says that no matter how illegally the policeman acted, "the next time anything of the sort happens, instead of using a baton, he may use a gun." That is the only interpretation to be placed on the language used by the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman denies it, let him get up at the Table and repudiate it.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I do repudiate it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Well, then, what did you mean? The right hon. Gentleman has stated what he did not mean; will he tell us what it is he did mean? The words which fell from him seem to me to be very extraordinary, especially in view of all the circumstances existing in Ireland at the present time. In that country you have 12,000 policemen, and every policeman
  1202
  in Ireland is a politician; he takes his orders not merely from his superior officers, but also from the tone taken by the political Leaders of the Government. Those men will all read the remarks made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to-morrow morning; and they will put upon his language the interpretation we have placed upon it—namely, that in future not only are they to use the baton, in circumstances that may be legal or illegal, but, in addition to that, they are to do something that is worse. The right hon. Gentleman is the head of the police; will he now tell us, if that is not his meaning, what his meaning really is? Will he say that, pending the elucidation of the law on that subject by the Irish Courts, he will suspend these Proclamations; because, if he will do this, we can, by taking action against a police officer or superintendent for nominal assault, test the question as to whether the Government Proclamation was legal or illegal. But, in the meantime, we are governed by English law, and while that is so, it is a monstrous thing for any official in the position of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to issue what I can only call a blood mandate to his police.
  MR. JAMES STUART: Sir, I should not have intervened in this debate at all, and should not have attempted to detain the Committee from the Division about to be taken, but for the fact that, in the course of this debate, one of the Leaders of the Party opposite, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, made a statement of considerable gravity, and I have felt that, in consequence of that statement, it is perfectly right that I, as an English Member, should offer a few remarks. At the present time, it is surely remarkably necessary that the Government of this country should be very careful of the language they use in speaking about Ireland; and particularly careful to confine themselves in their promises of action with reference to that country within the strict bounds of legality. The illegality of their interference in the manner of proceeding with regard to public meetings in Ireland rests, not on the assertion of my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary, but on the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. I have risen simply on this account, that I think it my

  1203
  duty, on behalf of that constituency which I represent, as well as that of hon. Members who sit beside me, not to allow the only Members who protest against the language used by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to be the Irish Representatives, because we stand solidly beside the Irish Members; we suffer where they suffer; the course of law in this country suffers by the violation of the law in Ireland; and I do not think that that portion of the people whom we on these Benches represent will endure that Ireland shall be made a Poland of.
  MR. M'LAREN: I rise to express, as an English Member who is in no way indebted to the Irish Members, my concurrence with what has just fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hoxton (Mr. Stuart), who has just sat down—namely, that, after such a speech as has been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, it is not right that all the comments on that declaration should come from the Irish Members. The English Members are as much interested in justice as any other body of Representatives can possibly be; and when we hear a speech made from the Government Bench that can only bear the interpretation which has been put on it by hon. Members below the Gangway, I think we are entitled to protest against it. [Cries of "Divide!"] I desire to make an appeal to hon. Members opposite, who interrupt me, before they compel me to move that the Chairman report Progress. I would ask them this—Why is it that, while they will listen to Irish Members on this subject, when myself or any other English Member gets up, they endeavour to shout us down? When the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) rose to address the Committee, they tried to shout him down; they applied the same treatment to the hon. Member for Hoxton (Mr. Stuart); and now they are applying it to me. If English Members who rise to speak in this debate are to be treated like this, we may expect to go on sitting to any hour in the morning. I may say that, personally, I care nothing for these interruptions; but I hope that, if they are continued from those Benches, one Liberal Member after another will rise, until, before the Division is taken on
  1204
  this Vote, every hon. Member on this side of the House will have spoken. It rests entirely with hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House whether I shall move to report Progress or not. Proceeding with the remarks I was about to make, I will only say that when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor) described the wounds that were inflicted on the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), I was very grieved to hear the cheers that came from the Tory Benches. I think, Sir, it is a very sad state of things that one side of the House should rejoice when it is stated that an hon. Member on the other side has been knocked down by the police at the time he is acting in the exercise of his rights as a citizen. That for which the hon. Gentleman was assaulted in Ireland was not an endeavour to intimidate jurors; what he desired to do was to protest against jury packing, which is an illegal act; and I say that if hon. Members of this House, who attend a public meeting to protest against an illegal act, are to be assaulted by the police, are to be knocked down and wounded by them, and hon. Gentlemen opposite are to jeer at such proceedings, it is a very sad state of things. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said that those hon. Members deserved what they got. He said they had deserved the blows they received, and that in future they would get more than blows from policemen's batons, and they themselves would be responsible for it. I do not wonder at the interpretation put on those words by hon. Members below the Gangway. I am glad, however, that the right hon. Gentleman has repudiated the extreme interpretation put on his language; but, at the same time, a man is to be held responsible for the natural consequences of his acts, and also for the natural consequences of his words, and the natural interpretation, and most explicit interpretation, is that which hon. Members have put on the words used by the right hon. Gentleman. Those words will appear in all the Irish newspapers to-morrow, and it will be generally understood, both by the Irish and the English people, that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to resort to measures indicated by hon. Members below the Gangway. The Government may say that the responsibility will rest on the

  1205
  Irish people; but the fact remains that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was an indication that the Government are not going to stop at the baton, but will resort to extreme measures where they deem it necessary. I do not know what those measures can mean, unless they mean firearms, after the batons are given up. Therefore, it is clear that when the Government has in contemplation the use of more extreme measures than batons, I think we are entitled to say they are contemplating a resort to blood shed. It is, Sir, because of the disastrous use which may be made of that speech of the Chief Secretary, that I, as an English Member, protest against the language he has employed, and have risen to give an express refusal to be in any way implicated in it. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to modify his language, and let it be known that his Government does not intend to carry out a policy that will only exasperate the Irish people, and still further intensify the feeling with which they regard this country.
  MR. DILLON: I think it would be impossible to exaggerate or aggravate the dangerous tendency of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I must confess that the temper exhibited by hon. Members opposite in regard to this matter has completely taken me by surprise. Let us remember what took place to-night at the opening of this discussion. Having gone frequently over from London to Ireland, and been an eye-witness to scenes in which I myself have taken a part from Sunday to Sunday in that country, on occasions when a single blow struck must have resulted in the loss of 50 or 60, or perhaps 100 lives, I am astonished to find hon. Gentlemen opposite treating this subject as if it were a mere laughing matter. I have stated, and I repeat the statement, that I have come from places in which I have been in the thick of the fray myself, and where I have had a policeman's baton playing about my head. ["Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member says Hear, hear; but I tell him that the day in which a bayonet is drawn upon one of us in Ireland, many a drop of blood will be spilt. Let me tell hon. Members that although they may laugh as they come down here in order to close this debate, nevertheless
  1206
  when the Chief Secretary for Ireland gives us the bayonet, he will not have reason to laugh. The right hon. Gentleman knows, while sitting in his place and listening to what I say, that if the statement lie has made—and his repudiation of which I deny—namely, that if we continue the proceedings we have described, something worse than batons will be used against us, the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that if he moans to carry out that policy, and did not use his language to-night in an unguarded moment of excitement or anger, the prospect before him is such that it would be far better for him that he had never accepted his present office, and he will not only regret the day in which he did accept it, but will doubly repent the night on which he made that speech. I wish to ask hon Members to think over what has occurred. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said that the meetings suppressed in Ireland only numbered eight during the last four months. Up to last Christmas, with the exception of the meeting at Sligo, we had no great complaint to make. It is within the last three or four weeks that the worst phase of the Government policy has been entered on, a policy which has brought Government rule in Ireland to the verge of a dangerous and critical position. What have we heard from the right hon. Gentleman to-day? I asked him to explain to us on what law the Government relied on carrying out their policy. The people I represent believe and are fully convinced that it is the Government who are breaking the law, and not we; and, if tomorrow the police should attempt to break up a meeting, and the people should resist them, is it not the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, as the Governor of the country, to refer us to the law under which he is acting, in order that we may be able to instruct our people? I say, on his head be the blood and the guilt. [A VOICE: "On yours!"] Hon. Members who are ignorant, and who interrupt me, and who, in all probability, never took the trouble to read a line of Irish history or law, and who come down to this House to obey the orders of their Leaders, are unfit to take any part in the debates of this House, but confine their share in the discussion of great subjects like this to incoherent interruptions, which only serve to exhibit their

  1207
  ignorance. But I ask a question, and I say I am entitled to an answer to it. I ask, has the Government in Ireland law under which they can put down public meetings: and, if so, where are we to find it? I have told the Chief Secretary of Ireland that we are convinced the law is on our side; I also said we meant to hold these meetings in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's Proclamations. What is the answer we get? We get no reference to the law; we get no information as to where we are to look for the law; but we do get an intimation that, if we go on exercising our legal right in Ireland until the law is altered, we shall get something worse than batons. Well, what is worse than batons? A man who uses words like these when he does not lay down what the law is, but only convinces certain Members of the House that in using the force he speaks of, he only does so to vindicate the law and not to break it, is pursuing a course the most deadly and most dangerous to the public peace of Ireland. I have seen the police wantonly attack the people and without provocation. An instance of that occurred at Rosscrea, when I was present. A body of people, some 200 in number, perhaps, walked with me to my hotel. We were not intending to hold a meeting; our meeting had been held peaceably, and a number of men accompanied me to my hotel. The police, infuriated by the fact of a meeting having been held, hardly allowed me to enter the door of my hotel, when they charged among the crowd, and I heard the crack, crack, of the batons upon the skulls of the people, and some men felled to the ground. I declare to Heaven if I had had a revolver in my hand then, I would have used it.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: Mr. Courtney, I rise to Order, and draw your attention to the very unseemly interruptions of two noble Lords who shed lustre upon their Order—I mean the noble Lord the Member for North Tyrone (Lord Ernest Hamilton) and the noble Lord who sits for the Chippenham Division of Wiltshire (Lord Henry Bruce).
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Mr. Dillon will proceed.
  MR. DILLON: I do not for a moment seek to justify, nor have I any intention to justify, such action on the part of any
  1208
  Nationalist Leader in Ireland; but do you suppose we have no sense of wrong, do you suppose we have hearts of stone in our breasts, when we see our people smashed by policemen's batons, when we see old men, as I saw them at Rosscrea, felled to the ground by policemen without a shadow of excuse, without a shadow of law. Yet, when we come to raise this question in the House, right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not think it worth while to answer my simple question, under what law do they act? These right hon. Gentlemen think they have reached that stage in the administration of affairs in Ireland when they can throw law aside; that they have reached that stage when policemen's batons, or something else, will do without law. I am sorry they should think so, and it will be a sad day when it has come to this. I can tell them they are not serving the cause of the Union by carrying on this course. Nothing is more calculated to disgust the people of Ireland with this House, nothing is more likely to lead them to despair of justice proceeding from it, and from those who administer the affairs of the country, than, on a question which may involve the lives of numbers of our people, to find that through the whole night occupants of the Front Bench sit silent. I say it is a policy that is disgraceful to the Administration of our country. All we can do is to protest against it, until the law is clearly laid down. Until we are convinced that the Government are not, as we believe them to be, breaking the law, in an important, a vital particular, when they proclaim these meetings, we shall continue to hold them responsible, deeply, terribly, as we feel the risk of doing so.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): At this hour I will not trouble the Committee beyond a few remarks. I think if the hon. Member who has just sat down had attended to the observations of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, early in the evening, he would not have asked under what law these meetings have been proclaimed. That was stated in his observations after the opening of this debate, and I can do little more than repeat the statement then made. Again I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the circumstances, and to say that there

  1209
  has been no new departure in Ireland during the last few months in the policy of proclaiming meetings. The Government have not in any way altered the opinions they have expressed and the views they have always entertained; and, as a matter of fact, during the last five weeks only three meetings have been proclaimed, and during the last three months only eight. The law, if we could discuss it at full length, can be shown in the clearest way. The law is this—and I believe, if it were necessary or possible to argue it here as a legal question, it could easily be proved by authorities to which we could refer and on which we rely—that if a meeting is held for an unlawful object, or for an unlawful purpose, then that meeting is an unlawful assembly, and it is in the power of conservators of the peace—it is their right, it is their duty—to prevent that meeting taking place. Whether the Proclamation is issued by the local magistrates, or issued by the Lord Lieutenant, or by the Lords Justices, in that Proclamation the grounds for its issue are stated, and anyone can refer to them and see if those grounds are not sufficient.
  An hon. MEMBER: Is that the law in England?
  MR. HOLMES: It is precisely the same in England.
  An hon. MEMBER: It is not the law of England!
  MR. HOLMES: I may mention to the Committee that there is an easy way to test the legality of these things, because the Lord Lieutenant's Proclamation does not in itself constitute law. The Proclamation is addressed to those believed to be about to engage in an unlawful act; but if the Proclamation is not justified by law, if it interferes with any man where interference is not justified, that is a question that can be tested before the ordinary tribunal. What is the meaning, then, of speech after speech, of discussion after discussion, when not one single attempt has been made during the last few months for the purpose of ascertaining, before a competent tribunal, whether the Government were right or wrong in proclaiming a meeting? I have stated my view of the law, and we have Courts for the purpose of settling such questions, and if anyone objects to the action of the Government on the ground of illegality,
  1210
  that question can be decided by the Court. If it were decided, we should not then have these references after references to Proclamations with which this House is wholly unable to deal, and general appeals to Members of the Committee that the Government have acted illegally. On each of the eight occasions when meetings have been proclaimed the subject was investigated as carefully as possible; and there is not the shadow of a doubt that these meetings had an unlawful object—they were unlawful assemblies, and it was the duty of the conservators of the police to prevent their being held.
  MR. PARNELL: The right hon. Gentleman the Law Officer of the Crown, who has just spoken, and his Colleague who sits beside him on the Front Bench, have been repeatedly asked what is the law on this question—the Proclamation of meetings in Ireland—whether by magistrates or by the Lord Lieutenant, and where is this law to be found? Now, the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has given us his version of the law. He says it is in the power of any conservators of the peace to suppress and disperse meetings called for an illegal purpose; and he leaves us to suppose that the conservators of the peace—that any conservator of the peace—is to be the judge as to whether this meeting has been called for an illegal purpose or not. This must follow from the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland. He says that these meetings have been suppressed under the law which enables, according to his opinion, any conservator of the peace to suppress a meeting; therefore, these meetings have been suppressed by conservators of the peace, who constitute themselves judges whether these meetings are called for an illegal purpose or not. Consequently, it follows that any police constable in Ireland can constitute himself a judge as to the legality or illegality of a meeting, and use his weapons to suppress that meeting. The brother Law Officer of the Attorney General shakes his head. We want elucidation; we want to know not only what is his opinion of the law, but where he finds that law? The Attorney General spoke of authorities; but he did not give us any authority; he did not cite a single case, or quote a single authority on which he relies,

  1211
  Why not? Has he any authority to give us? Does he know that after the suppression of a meeting in the North of Ireland, in 1881, by the magistrates there, an action was brought against the Crown in Ireland, and the Judges decided the point of law adversely to those who brought the action, and who suffered at the suppression of the meeting, being assaulted by the police? They decided on a point which was decided almost immediately afterwards by a Superior Court in England in a precisely different direction. Here is a conflict of opinion between English and Irish Judges. The English Judges decided, and that decision has been acted upon by the authorities ever since, both by magistrates and by the Home Secretary, in the sense that there is no right to suppress public meetings in England. You cannot do it. An example was given in a disorderly meeting of Orangemen, which the then Home Secretary avowed his inability to suppress in view of that decision of the Court. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland says if you are aggrieved by a suppression of a meeting, you can appeal to the Courts. Well, this is a Vote for £30,000 for the Irish Constabulary, and this body is armed with weapons of precision which they carry to these meetings, and which they use in suppression of meetings—not only batons, but sharpened bayonets and rifles of precision. The Chief Secretary for Ireland told the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) that the next time we took part in these illegal meetings and refused to disperse, we would get something harder than batons—the right hon. Gentleman does not deny that is a correct representation of what he said. [Mr. HOLMES dissented.] It is useless for the Attorney General for Ireland to shake his head; he did not make the statement, and the Chief Secretary does not deny it.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I did not say anything about the next time. The amount of what I said was this—that the law must be enforced at any cost.
  MR. PARNELL: At half-past 1 the right hon. Gentleman gives a second edition of what he said at half-past 12, differing in every particular, differing in every word—bearing no resemblance whatever to it. Recollect, what we are
  1212
  discussing, what we are trying to find out, is what is the law. The right hon. Gentleman was speaking of a meeting which was proclaimed at Cork, which was dispersed at Cork without a proclamation by a local Inspector of Police, assisted by armed constables, on which occasion many people were struck, knocked down, and kicked by the police. The right hon. Gentleman, in speaking of that incident in his campaign, said distinctly—his language is within the recollection of the Committee—he does not deny it now, although he talks of the amount of what he said—he said distinctly that, in future, we must expect something harder than batons. What does something harder than batons mean? The police carry something harder, they carry cold steel. That is what the Chief Secretary for Ireland has threatened, and the litigants, the people who feel themselves aggrieved, we are told by the right hon. Gentleman's Colleague, the Attorney General for Ireland, when they have been run through the body with a bayonet, they are at liberty to appeal to the Courts of the country. There are two Irish Law Officers present. I do not know whether it is that their salaries are so small, that they think themselves badly paid, that they have been so chary of their words, their opinions, and their advice, that we have to wait until half-past 1 before we get a few words on this legal point from the right hon. and learned Attorney General. I do not know how long we must wait for an answer to the question repeatedly asked, what is your authority for your law? Are we entitled to have this much information or not? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, is the Committee entitled to have this information? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has excused himself on the ground of its being a technical point. We do not ask him to go into a legal argument as if he were in Court; we ask for the authority for the exercise of these grave destructive powers by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. What is the authority upon which he disperses meetings by force of arms, giving those who refuse to disperse cold steel or "something harder than batons?" What is the authority? Are we to wait for an answer? Are we to wait in vain for an answer? You have this force of

  1213
  Constabulary, an essentially un-Constitutional force, to which you would not submit for a moment in this country—a force which is an evasion of the Mutiny Act, for it is a military, not a police force. You ask for money for this force; and, in view of the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, breathing threatenings of slaughter—the Chief Secretary, who has absolute control over this force, who can promote and dismiss its members as he pleases, can increase their pay, can do everything or nothing for them—we have a statement of the way in which he intends to use this force for the suppression of meetings in Ireland, and we are entitled, before the money is voted, to a plain answer—what is the law on which you rely? Where is jour authority for this exercise of, as we believe, this illegal force? It is well for you to say these meetings were summoned for an unlawful purpose; that is not our opinion. Are you the only judges in the case? Do you rely on the fact that you are in possession of your superior force for the maintenance of your rule, and the power of dispersing our meetings? You found a difficulty in getting a verdict against the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and his Colleagues lately. Do you not suppose an aggrieved person in Ireland would not find an equal difficulty against you? Ah! but you have an advantage against the hon. Member for East Mayo, for you threaten murder against the people, and he has not retaliated on you in kind. You rely, then, on this superior force; you admit it, you say, because you can commit slaughter with impunity; that you will commit it, and that you will trample on the law. Is that your answer?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must be aware that he is exceeding the limits of debate in the line he is taking.
  MR. PARNELL: I have asked, Sir, for a plain answer to a plain question. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has taken very good care not to exceed the limits of debate. In view of the cold-blooded statement which has been made to the Committee to-night by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; in view of the evident fact, which was self-evident from his bearing, manner, attitude, and language, that the right hon. Gentleman is not
  1214
  fit to be trusted with this grave power over the lives and persons of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland, I ask again, even at the risk of exceeding the limit of debate, I ask again for an answer to the question, What is the law upon which you rely, and where is your authority?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I have not the least intention of following the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in his remarks, and which I believe many other Members have heard with great regret. I simply rise in consequence of his appeal, and an appeal which has been made by certain other hon. Members below the Gangway, that there should be some statement as to the law of England in this matter. I have been asked for an authoritative statement, whether the law in England is the same as it is in Ireland, and I have not a word to add to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. [Laughter.] I am not disturbed by laughter. I will put my words on record, and they may be dealt with in debate. In my judgment, in my opinion, an opinion I am willing to substantiate, the law of England and Ireland, so far as I know it, was correctly stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. My reason for saying I have nothing to add is not that I differ from him, or wish to avoid stating anything, but because I believe his statement is strictly correct, and applicable both to England and Ireland. It depends on no specific authority, although authorities can be found in all the books on Constitutional Law—it depends upon the Common Law. The Common Law of England is, that if persons meet together for an illegal purpose, if they combine to commit an illegal act, if the combination or meeting is in itself illegal, it is the duty of the authorities to put a stop to that illegal act, and also they are entitled to warn persons likely to engage in that act that they will be called to account for it. As has been stated, the Proclamation does not make law; the Proclamation only—if it is a proper Proclamation—has force and effect when it is directed against the commission of an illegal act. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has,

  1215
  strangely enough for one of his acumen, misunderstood the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland. It is not the presence of the police that can determine whether a meeting is illegal or not. The police officer is only the visible exponent of the law. What he does is this—If the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, or whoever is responsible for administration, deems an act illegal, he acts in support of that belief; and if he acts wrongly, his acts can be challenged in a Court of Law. It is idle to suggest—and I know the hon. Member for Cork will not misunderstand me—that the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, or the policeman, who endeavours to stop an act he believes to be illegal, is making a law for himself. Nothing of the kind; he is simply acting in what he believes to be his duty; and if any person believes, on the other band, that he is acting unlawfully and unjustly, the Courts will decide any question as to the legality of those acts. The hon. Member for Cork said that this view of the law had been upheld in Ireland in 1884, but that within a few days of this decision the law was decided differently in England. So far as I can understand, that is an entire mistake. There is no declaration or judicial exposition of the law with which I am acquainted which in any way laid down a different principle. The case the hon. Member for Cork alluded to is the Salvation Army case. In that case the conviction of the magistrate was simply on the ground that persons formed a procession, not because it was an illegal act itself, not because they were going to fulfil an illegal purpose—but because, being a procession, it was said it would most probably bring about a breach of the peace. But the learned Judges—Mr. Justice Field, and another whose name I do not remember at the moment—held that people had a perfect right to follow in a procession, and that a procession was not an illegal act; therefore, though they might be responsible for their conduct if it led to a breach of the peace, the action of the magistrate was not legal. As I understand the law, it is not that people meet together, not that they assemble in numbers, but that they meet together for an unlawful purpose which constitutes an unlawful meeting. I will only say, before I sit down, that I have listened to the
  1216
  debate, and that I think hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have placed a strained interpretation on the language of my right, hon. Friend. But be that as it may, I desire to add but one word to this debate, and that is this—that hon. Members who take part in these illegal meetings, or men in Ireland who take part in them ought to understand that the conservators of the peace have a right to disperse them, and for any consequences that follow such dispersal, great or small, they, and not the authorities, are responsible.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I intend to say but a few words, and these only in consequence of what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. I do not profess to understand the law of Ireland in relation to public meetings; but I do profess to understand the law of England on the subject. For many years past I have received considerable instruction therein at the hands of various Attorneys General in this country. I think the hon. and learned Attorney General will agree with me in saying that the law as to unlawful meetings is fully laid down in the case King v. Hunt and others, which forms a sort of leading case. On the basis of that, and subsequent dicta, I take the liberty of challenging the opinion laid down by the hon. and learned Attorney General. First, before I deal with the legal part, permit me, as an English Member, to express my great regret for the words which I believe fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland under, perhaps, conditions of physical pain at the time; and which I trusted he would have thought fit to modify when they were brought to his attention. I hope I shall not be guilty of using any language that ought not to be used against one in his high position of responsibility; but if his words meant anything, they were a menace that all who engaged in similar meetings were to be prepared to meet with something more than batons; and I cannot help thinking that against meetings not yet declared illegal, meetings the object of which is not yet announced, such menaces, such threats, are in the highest degree unwise. And now I take the liberty of submitting to the Attorney General, that no Proclamation can change the character of a meeting from

  1217
  legal to illegal. I remember a meeting held 17 years ago, convened for Trafalgar Square, and forbidden by the Home Secretary. The same day as that on which the Proclamation was issued I served notices on the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police that I intended to hold the meeting, that it would be legal, and that any attempt to disperse it would be illegal. I did hold the meeting, it was peacefully held, and no steps were taken in consequence. Suppose those who had convened the meeting had accepted, which I did not, the Proclamation forbidding it, against whom would there a remedy have been of which the Attorney General talks? Against whom could any citizen intending to take part in that meeting have taken action?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I never said that a Proclamation could make a legal meeting illegal; it is not the Proclamation—it is the purpose of the meeting.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I regret that I have not made clear to the hon. and learned Attorney General the point to which I take exception. I thought we had both agreed that a Proclamation does not vary the character of the meeting—that it was only a warning to citizens to exercise more attention with reference to the character of the meeting, a warning of possible consequences that might ensue. But I understood the Attorney General to say that if a Proclamation were unjust it could be tried in a Court of Law, and I say there is no foundation for that. There is no remedy against any public functionary who may use a Proclamation to prevent a citizen attending a meeting in which he might legally take part. It is a monstrous doctrine for any Representative of the Government charged with the duty and responsibility of using military forceto threaten, with relation to a future meeting, the illegality of such meeting not being established. I will not take up the time of the Committee further; but it would be absurd to allow such a doctrine utterly misinterpreting the law to pass without challenge.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: The hon. and learned Attorney General based the legality of these Proclamations on the illegality of the object for which the meetings were held. But where is the illegality proved? If we held a
  1218
  meeting that is illegal, are we not open to prosecution? If you proceed violently against the people who attend the meetings, you are responsible for all the injury that follows. But we cannot hope to make you responsible with the juries you have in Ireland. It is not possible for any subject to obtain redress against you; it would be useless for us to waste our time in the effort. I will venture to quote, as against the hon. and learned Attorney General, the opinion of a gentleman often received as an authority in debate. Professor Dicey says—
  "The best proof of the narrowness of the limits in which the law gives power to the Executive to interfere with the right of meeting is to he found in the Coercion Act for Ireland, 1882, Section 10."
  The right hon. Gentleman knows what Section 10 was; it was authority given to the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim any meeting he chose. But Professor Dicey says—
  "Such special enactments would make it lawful for the Lord Lieutenant to forbid a meeting he knew to be dangerous to the public peace, but the necessity for a Coercion Act shows the limited power of the Government under the law of the land."
  That is a more correct statement than that of the Attorney General. Also, with regard to the Salvation Army case, I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman is altogether correct, for I venture to say that if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General were in a judicial position and called upon to decide, he would not decide in a different direction, or, indeed, that any Judge would not uphold the decision of the Queen's Bench in the case. That decision altogether puts an ond to the theory of the rights of the Crown to suppress public meetings. If the Crown has any fault to find, it should proceed by legal process, not in a violent and illegal manner, as they have proceeded during the last few months, Never was there a more unconstitutional doctrine than to imagine that the Proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant could have the slightest effect on meetings held for a lawful purpose. Meetings have been held in Ireland for the purpose of furthering the interests of the people, and on some obiter dicta of the Queen's Bench they have been declared illegal; but we have had no such decision on the Plan of

  1219
  Campaign. If it was not an illegal document, the meetings to further it were legal meetings. We have not had a decision—the packed jury in Dublin would not convict, notwithstanding all the eloquence of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. That packed jury would not convict, although they were chosen so as to lead any reasonable outsider to suppose the greater part were prejudiced politically against the accused. Yet these men had the courage and honesty to refuse to convict, and the Government will in future proceed to pack juries on an improved method. I must express my astonishment and regret that the hon. and learned Attorney General should have made that extraordinary statement in regard to the law, in which every Judge on the Bench would disagree with him.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,960, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 246; Noes 121: Majority 125.—(Div. List, No 39.)

  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,560, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Science and Art Department, and of the Establishments connected therewith."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I must appeal to the Committee to consider the position in which we are placed. We have a certain number of Votes to get through, and that must be got through by Monday night at the latest. We may report Progress now, but only on the distinct understanding that the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates must be disposed of on Monday night. I venture to appeal to the Committee to take such Votes as will not detain us now, so that
  1220
  time will be left free for Monday's discussion. I am only saying what is necessary for the exigencies of the Public Service, when I say the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates must be disposed of by Monday night.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I think the discussion of the Science and Art Vote need not occupy much time; and I think, perhaps, it would be as well if the right hon. Gentleman adhered to the arrangement for taking Votes in order, inasmuch as if these Votes can be passed without discussion they will as readily be disposed of on Monday as now, and there would be an advantage to Members who have left the House and who are interested in the question to be raised.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The Diplomatic Votes must take a long discussion. It might be convenient, perhaps, to take those Votes to which here are no objections.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Perhaps the hon. Member for Shoreditch will proceed with his observations now?
  MR. JAMES STUART: No, Sir; What may have to be said on the Science and Art Vote, which is a very important matter, and one on which many Members have waited their opportunity for a long time, had better be said at an earlier period of the Sitting. My contention is not at all of an obstructive tendency, and the Government must see we are not unreasonable, seeing that we have now no opportunity for raising discussion upon matters of special interest, except upon Votes in Supply. It is desirable that the points we desire to raise should be under the consideration of the Government before the Education Estimates come on.
  DR. TANNER: Upon Class V. there are, I know, a certain number of Members who desire to speak. I should suggest that the matters here should be postponed with the other Business.
  MR. CONYBEARE: With reference to what has been said about proceeding with other Votes, I am firmly opposed to taking the Votes out of their order. It is unfair to Members who are absent.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I undertook to agree just now to reporting Progress, on the distinct understanding that the whole of the Supplementary Civil Ser-

  1221
  vice Estimates must be voted in Committee on Monday.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: We give no undertaking.
  MR. ILLING WORTH: I do not understand on what ground the right hon. Gentleman appeals to the Committee. We are not at the end of the Session.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I rise to Order. What, Sir, is the Question before the Committee?
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: The attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to put pressure on the Committee is altogether unwarranted. We are merely at the beginning of a long Session of Parliament, and it is not the fault of anyone on this side of the House that we are driven into these corners—that we have only another day to discuss these Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman has the arrangement of Business, and it is for the pleasure of the Government, not for the convenience of the House, that a particular arrangement has been followed. It is an unprecedented step that the right hon. Gentleman desires us to take, in proceeding with the Estimates after we have spent the whole afternoon and night in the discussion. On the particular Vote standing next, I venture to say the views of my hon. Friend must carry weight. The Science and Art Vote is of interest to the whole of the United Kingdom; and how is it possible, with justice to those who feel that interest, to make speeches when they cannot be reported, and practically to give a silent vote with no discussion. I am not prepared to pass the Vote in silence. It would be infinitely better to rely on a whole night's discussion on Monday, rather than go on now. We might take Votes to-morrow, or even on Saturday, if necessary; but it is most unreasonable to ask hon. Members to enter on this question at this hour in the morning.
  MR. PARNELL: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) has explained to the Committee that the Government are in a difficulty as to the progress of Supply, and that it is necessary for the service of the country that the rest of the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates should be voted by Monday night. Well, that is not the fault of the Committee; probably, if he had adopted the ordinary course always adopted by Governments, of taking these
  1222
  Supplementary Estimates at an early period of the Session, so as to insure that they shall be carried through within the time required by law, the difficulty would not have arisen. The time, consequently, is very short; but he cannot accuse the Committee of having wasted time, or delayed Business. Seldom, in late years, have the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates been voted in a fewer number of Sittings. This is the second Sitting on which the Estimates have been taken, and usually, in previous Sessions, they have occupied five or six Sittings. The right hon. Gentleman has freely enough explained that he is pressed for time, and he is asking the Committee to come to an agreement that the Estimates shall be passed by Monday. Will he, on his side, give the Committee those facilities which it is in his power to give for the discussion of these Estimates, by putting down Supply for to-morrow night? If the right hon. Gentleman declines to do that, then I do not think he has established his claim, when he has Friday, usually a Supply night, at his disposal. I do not think he has established his claim to ask us to go on at half-past 2 with Votes in Supply. I put this to the right hon. Gentleman, as a reasonable man, whether he comes before the Committee on an equal footing, in asking them to continue a discussion at half-past 2 after 10½ hours' work, when he refuses to give the Committee facilities for discussion which it is in his power to give? Surely, if it is of such importance to get these Estimates by the close of Monday's Sitting, the right hon. Gentleman would be justified in allocating to-morrow to Supply. He might fear that he might not make Progress tomorrow. He might suppose that Supply would be blocked by Motions on going into Committee. Well, all I can say is, speaking for myself and my Colleagues, we will undertake not to put down Notices of Motion against his going into Supply to-morrow. This is a fair proposal. Let me put it in another way. The right hon. Gentleman asks for an understanding from the Committee that this class of Supply shall close on Monday. Well, suppose we give him this undertaking, on condition that he gives to-morrow night for Supply. He would be equally guarded in that way against having to-morrow devoted to

  1223
  other purposes than Supply, such as Motions. I have suggested to him the possibility of obtaining two guarantees. I give him, on behalf of our Party, an assurance that we will not bring forward Motions to-morrow if he sets down Supply. We will agree for ourselves—and, no doubt, other sections of the House will agree—if these facilities are given, under the circumstances, and in view of the fact that it is not the fault of the Committee. He might fairly give to-morrow for Supply, and if Supply finishes, then he can go on with other Business on Monday.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I do, Sir, wish to be understood as a reasonable man; but it would be utterly unreasonable to adopt the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. In our judgment, it is necessary to proceed with the Business we have set down for to-morrow; it is most urgent. The hon. Member is also aware that though he might, for himself and his Friends, undertake that no Motions should be moved to Supply tomorrow, if that is taken instead of the Rules of Procedure, he must be aware that such an arrangement would not be binding upon other hon. Gentlemen. The discussion of these Supplementary Civil Service Estimates has been much longer than usual. I have had experience and knowledge of facts and figures to sustain my assertion. I might urge another point to shorten present discussion—that is, that for every subject proposed to be raised, an equal opportunity would be afforded by the Votes in ordinary Supply. I must press to have the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates completed by Monday, and I trust the Committee will undertake to do this. I assent now to reporting Progress.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: What the right hon. Gentleman has said is perfectly true; my hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) can answer only for his immediate followers—not for other Members of the Opposition. It is impossible to prevent any Member from putting down an Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair; and does that not show the absolute futility of a proposal that we should enter into an undertaking for Monday? These understandings are absolutely futile, and cannot bind men not now present. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to earn
  1224
  the character of a reasonable man, he should give the Committee the reasons why it is necessary these Votes should be passed on Monday night. I am under the impression that several nights later would admit of ample time for the Appropriation Bill to go through all its stages in both Houses.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Besides the Civil Service Estimates, there are the Army and Navy Estimates and the Army and Navy Supplementary Estimates to pass before the close of the financial year.
  MR. PARNELL: I may point out the position in which we are, and the concession the right hon. Gentleman is refusing. He has taken advantage of the shortness of time left to deprive us of what we ask for—a discussion on Friday. He says it is necessary to take the Rules of Procedure to-morrow. I do not see why that necessity exists, or how the right hon. Gentleman makes out his contention. Under the Resolution of the House by which these Rules are set down from day to day, it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to set them down or not, as he pleases. It seems to me he is rather anxious to proceed with two things at the same time, making equal progress with both: but he had better beware of the fate of that man who tried to do too many things at the same time.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MOTIONS.
  LONDON CORPORATION (CHARGES OF MALVERSATION).

    >MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon certain charges, brought under the notice of this House by Mr. Howell, Member for the North-East Division of Bethnal Green, and Mr. Bradlaugh, Member for the Borough of Northampton, alleging improper use and malversation of public funds of the Corporation of London, by or with the consent of members and officials of such Corporation."—(Mr. Howell.)
    SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I do not rise to oppose this Motion; on the contrary, I welcome it; but I

    1225
    do wish to put distinctly before the House the circumstances of the case. In the first place, the Corporation have courted this inquiry; while the Municipal Beform League, as represented by the lion. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine), have shrunk from it. I wish, further, to impress upon the House what are the personal accusations charged against myself. The hon. Member (Mr. Bradlaugh) pledges himself to prove that the Lord Mayor in 1884, who happened to be myself, personally spent money for certain corrupt purposes. That is—I do not say what the hon. Member for Bethnal Green said—but that is what the hon. Member for Northampton, who is joined with him in this Motion, stated. That is the charge brought before the House; and I think, when the Committee is struck, as the charge involves the honour of a Member of this House, that the Committee should investigate this charge before they go into the question of the acts of Mr. Johnson, or Mr. Peters, or anyone else. That is the charge made by the hon. Members; and if they fail to prove that charge, I may leave the House to judge how much attention should be paid to the remainder.
    MR.HOWELL: I beg to point out that I have nothing whatever to do with the charges made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). My statement was perfectly clear and distinct. I undertook to bring the matter before the House, and the Motion I propose is with reference to the statement I made. I made no personal charge against the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Robert Fowler), I distinctly disavowed that. I wish distinctly to point out that the charge brought by me I mean to substantiate absolutely; but I object altogether to the Committee placing me in the position of having to substantiate charges made by the hon. Member for Northampton. That is a matter for the hon. Member for Northampton to undertake and justify when I have justified the statement I brought before the House. I deny the right of the hon. Gentleman the Member for London to dictate to the Committee the form in which the Committee should carry out its proceedings. Under ordinary circumstances, the Committee would take the charges brought by myself with regard to the expenditure of public money;
    1226
    it is not a charge brought by me against the hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member of this House. I was clear, definite, and distinct in this respect. I told the hon. Gentleman personally, before I brought the matter before the House, the precise line I should take. I took that line, and I do not waver from it one iota. I think, under ordinary circumstances, that the course adopted should be quite contrary to that indicated by the hon. Gentleman. The first things to be substantiated are the charges made by me. Then, after I have fastened these charges on the Corporation officials, will be the time for the hon. Member for Northampton to prefer and justify the charges he has made.
    MR. BEADLAUGH: I prefer to adhere to my own charge made the day before yesterday, and not to accept the charge in the form the hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Fowler) has chosen to substitute. My charge was a specific one. I undertook to prove that large sums of money—of public money—have been issued under circumstances which compelled on the part of the hon. Gentleman knowledge of its being improperly used to influence this House. I did not make the charge the hon. Gentleman has put into my mouth to-night; the one I have made I will prove up to the hilt.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do take evidence on oath.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—(Mr. Howell.)

    INTESTATES ESTATES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Ambrose, Bill to amend the Law relating to the distribution of the Estates of Intestates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ambrose, Mr. Neville, Mr. Joseph Howard, Mr. Addison, and Mr. T. P. O'Connor. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 187.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Irish Land Law (58); Land Transfer (57); Merchant Shipping (Transfer of Registry, &c.)* (59).
Second Reading— Sheriff's Consolidation* (50); County Courts (Expenses)* (48).
Committee— Report— Lunacy* (8).
Third Reading— Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment* (49), and passed.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92. and 93. be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Easter, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.
IRISH LAND LAW BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, in rising to invite your Lordships once again to address yourselves to legislative proposals for dealing with the land and land tenure in Ireland, I do not intend to waste the time of the House with protestations of my inability and incompetence to deal with a subject which the greatest master of legislation probably of this or any other country has lately described as the most difficult, and most complex, subject with which in the long course of his political career he has ever had to deal. No one can realize more fully than I do the great difficulty of the task which at short notice, and in circumstances of some peculiarity, it has fallen upon me to perform. I shall endeavour to do my duty to the House by stating as suc-

  3
  cinctly, as straightforwardly, and as clearly as I can the position of the Government with respect to this important question, and the provisions of the Bill which I have the honour to ask the House to read for the first time, and in doing so, I shall simply throw myself upon the indulgence and forbearance of the House. My Lords, it will be some relief to the House that I should at once state that it is not my intention, in dealing with this matter, to ask your Lordships to revert to the earlier chapters of Irish history, to which it has been the custom of all speakers on the Irish Question to invite their hearers to turn their attention. I shall not ask your Lordships to review the events that took place in the golden era of comfort and happiness of which we have heard so much lately. I believe I shall be able to address myself to this subject without once calling attention to that important, but, in my opinion, overrated event—the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam. I have limited my notice, and I intend to limit my remarks, to the more recent periods of legislation with reference to the Land Question for this reason. Nothing has appeared to me more remarkable in the study which I have been able to give to this question than the entire absence of unity, not only of detail, but of principle, which has characterized legislation with reference to land in Ireland, at all events, during the first half of this century. Up to and including 1860 the principles upon which that legislation was founded and guided may be roughly stated to have been those of the Common Law, upon which land legislation in this country was also founded. My Lords, in 1860, the Act which was passed for the reform of the tenure of land in Ireland entirely reversed the principle upon which, up to that time, legislation had been founded. It substituted for feudalism and the tenure of the Common Law a principle of absolute or implied freedom of contract; and for 10 years, between 1860 and 1870, it may be said that the law relating to land in Ireland rested solely and entirely on freedom of contract. After 10 years the policy was again completely reversed, and we come then to the great Act for which we are indebted to the late Prime Minister (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), which, if it did not reverse, at all events largely limited, altered, and controlled the principle of
  4
  free contract upon which, up to that time, legislation had been founded. I need hardly remind you of the provisions of this great Act. My object is only to show that the principle then adopted by Mr. Gladstone has been maintained ever since. The Act of 1870, as your Lordships know, legalized the Ulster custom and other customs wherever they existed in Ireland, and in the absence of any custom it gave the tenants two great rights, which constituted in themselves a tenure, apart from absolute freedom of contract. It gave him compensation for improvements and compensation for disturbance. I need hardly refer to the Bright Clauses of that Act for purchase, because the subject of purchase is one with which the Government has to deal as a separate question, and on a subsequent occasion. From and after the year 1870 we appear to have arrived at last at a sound and permanent principle of policy. The Act of 1881, under which the tenure of land is at present regulated in Ireland, to use the words of Mr. Gladstone, "limited and regulated still further the principle of freedom of contract." It enacted what wore known as the "three F's." It gave to the tenant free sale of his interest to a third party, under restrictions and with the consent or subject to the veto of his landlord. It gave fair rents, by the establishment of Courts which were empowered to revise rents. It gave fixity of tenure, by constituting judicial terms which were vested in the tenants subject to the special performance of the condition under which they held. Gene-rally, it may be said, that the Act of 1881 completely abolished freedom of contract, and created that system under which we are at present, I was about to say, suffering—namely, that of dual ownership. My object in the cursory recapitulation of these Acts has been to point out the principle upon which legislation is now founded, and the principle, therefore, upon which the Government are constrained to act in dealing with this great question. It has been said that the aim and object of legislation during the years to which I have just referred has been to improve the position of the rich at the expense of the position of the poor. My Lords, if that had been said merely by those whose object it is to find fault with all legislation which has received the ap-

  5
  proval of Parliament, I should take no further notice of that remark; but I cannot refrain from expressing my regret that this opinion has received apparently the sanction of a gentleman who, from his official position and the high character which he enjoys throughout the country, is entitled to the greatest respect. I refer to General Buller, the present Under Secretary for Ireland. My Lords, it is unnecessary for me to say, in entering my protest against one sentiment which he has expressed in the evidence before the Royal Commission, that I do so with the greatest possible respect and reluctance. General Buller is reported to have said, in reply to a question—
  "You have got very ignorant poor people, and the law should look after them, instead of which it has only looked after the rich."
  Now, the late Prime Minister, as I understand, has used this answer of General Buller as an argument to show that the present condition of the law in Ireland is such as to require remedies of the most drastic character. Nothing I can say would carry the weight which attaches to any statement by General Buller. But I must call to my assistance the evidence of the one man in the whole country who is best qualified by his antecedents and authority to give an answer to General Buller, and to explain what in reality has been the object of our recent legislation in Ireland. I need hardly say I refer to Mr. Gladstone himself. Mr. Gladstone, in 1881, in introducing his Land Bill, said—
  "It is commonly said that the iniquity of the Irish Land Laws is a main reason for legislation on Irish Land. Now, Sir, equity and iniquity may be in great part a comparative; but I must say that if we are to proceed on that principle of comparison, I think it is an exaggeration to describe the Land Laws of Ireland as iniquitous. …. The Land Laws of Ireland chiefly differ from the Land Laws of England in the very special provisions which they present to us on behalf of the tenant."—(3 Hansard, [260] 891.)
  It is a very poor compliment to the right hon. Gentleman, after all the efforts which his genius has made during the past years, efforts in which he was strenuously supported by noble Lords opposite, to say that the laws at present in force in Ireland are made for the rich at the expense of the poor. The Act of 1881 forms the basis of the legislation which Her Majesty's Government now propose
  6
  to the House. When they came into Office they found themselves face to face with a condition of things which I will not detain your Lordships with describing, for it is known to the House. In the difficulty which that state of things created, the Government determined that before they proceeded with any legislation with regard to land in Ireland, they would advise Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission, the Reference to which I may briefly state. My Lords, that Commission was directed to inquire to what extent, if any, and in what parts of Ireland, the operation of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, was affected either by combinations to resist payment of rent or by an exceptional fall in the prices of produce. That Commission consisted of five gentlemen, and it sat for five months. There is something pathetic in the manner in which the Commission described the labours through which they passed. They spent five months in reviewing all those abstruse questions; they sat 60 times, and examined 300 witnesses, whose evidence fills 1,000 pages of that vast Blue Book which is in the hands of your Lordships. At the conclusion of their labours, those five Commissioners produced three Reports, one of them differing only slightly from the Report of the majority. They reported first that the operation of the Land Act of 1831 had been affected by combinations, except in the case of Ulster; secondly, that Boycotting had largely prevailed; thirdly, that there had been a considerable fall in prices of produce in Ireland; and they made a further Report with reference to the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, which it is not my province to-night to touch upon. That being the gist of the Report of the Commissioners, I will state shortly their recommendations. In the first place, they recommended that a shorter period for the revision of judicial rents than 15 years should be fixed; and they recommended that that revision should take place every five years. They further recommended that such revision should be specially applied to rents fixed prior to 1886. They also recommended that the judicial rents should be fixed with relation to the price of produce—what is called a "produce rent." My Lords, before I pass to the

  7
  further recommendations of the Commissioners, I think it well to say that this recommendation is one to which Her Majesty's Government have found it impossible to give effect. I can hardly give the House all the reasons which have guided Her Majesty's Government to this decision; but I think it will be sufficient if I say broadly that the Government regard that period of 15 years, during which the judicial rents were to run, and before which they were not to be revised, as a period which was intended by Parliament to be a permanent settlement, and one with which it would be highly inexpedient to tamper. The Commissioners themselves have said, in their recommendation, that it is most undesirable to disturb an arrangement which was understood to be a permanent settlement. Further than that, we have the dissentient Report of my noble Friend behind me (Lard Milltown), who has given strong reasons why it is inexpedient that this recommendation should be adopted. He argued that high prices were very often concurrent with bad years, and that the tenant might thus have a high rent fixed in a time of great distress. He also raised a point which is, I think, ingenious— namely, that you ought in this matter to consider the value of the tenant-right which is in the tenant. That is to say, that if the tenant has the right to sell his interest in his holding, and, if that holding is subject to a revision of the judicial rent within a period shorter than 15 years, you are bound to consider that there is a possibility, if not a probability, that the amount of rent might be increased. It is obvious that the tenant-right, in the event of such a rise in rent, would be decreased. We have another witness to the undesirability of carrying out this recommendation of the Commission, and that witness is no less a person than Lord Hartington. In a speech he made last night, he spoke as follows: —
  "It appears to me that in spite of all this it is an absolutely open question whether, in the first place, rents are excessive in Ireland, and, in the second place, whether, if excessive, such excessive rents are being exacted. Therefore, it may be— probably is—wise and reasonable for Parliament to abstain from any attempt to deal anew with the settlement of rents fixed by the Irish Land Act of 1881."
  My Lords, more than that, if you were to disturb a settlement intended to be
  8
  permanent and guaranteed by Parliament, you would lead the Irish tenants and people to believe that there was no prospect of any finality in regard to legislation on the question of Irish land. The Royal Commission further recommended that the leaseholders should be admitted to the benefits of the Act of 1881, that a power should be given to the middleman to make a surrender of his interest, and that in cases of ejectment for non-payment of rent the period of redemption should run from the date of the verdict. I do not think it necessary to trouble your Lordships with any of the other recommendations of the Commission. Now, my Lords, with this Report before them the Government determined at once to deal with the state of things which was created by the Land Act of 1881. There is, however, one subject mentioned in the Report which, perhaps, I had better at once deal with and clear out of the way before I proceed further. That, my Lords, is the great question of land purchase. I have referred, in passing, very briefly to what are known as the Bright Clauses in the Act of 1870. Those provisions were supplemented by the further clauses enabling advances to be made to tenants in the Act of 1881. The Bright Clauses appear to have been practically useless; indeed, they appear to have been used in about 600 or 700 cases all told. Under the Act of 1881 more advantage was taken by the tenants of the facilities of purchase offered to them; but it was not until the Act of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was passed that any tangible advance was made in assisting the tenants of Ireland to purchase their holdings. My Lords, that Act met with a considerable amount of success; but it is the opinion of the Government that this question requires a still greater amount of attention. My Lords, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the time has arrived when a further large measure must be formulated dealing with the question of purchase by tenants of their holdings in Ireland. To that we mainly look for the settlement of the great questions which unhappily disturb that country; and in that alone I believe will be found a final solution. The question of land in Ireland will then be dealt with by the Government in two parts—the first in a Bill, which I have now the honour to lay

  9
  before your Lordships, which will deal with questions arising out of the Act of 1881—questions of considerable urgency and great importance. It will be followed by a measure which, as I said before, will accomplish that which will alone permanently settle the difficulties with which we have to contend— in other words, the abolition of the dual ownership created by the Act of 1881. I will now proceed to explain to your Lordships the provisions of the Bill which I am about to introduce. First, I will endeavour to make it clearer to your Lordships by dividing the three principal subjects with which this Bill proposes to deal as follows:—First, questions with regard to tenure; secondly, questions relating to appeals; and, thirdly, questions relating to equitable jurisdiction. Under the head of tenure, the first subject which I will approach, and with which I think I need not occupy your Lordships at great length, is the question, recommended by the Royal Commissioners, of the admission of leaseholders to the benefits of the Act of 1881. The Bill proposes that those holding leases in Ireland who were excluded by the Bill of Mr. Gladstone in 1881 should now be included in the provisions of this measure. These leaseholders number, roughly speaking, about 150,000, and I think that when the Bill is reviewed it will be found that there is no part of it which will have such a general acceptation or be so important in its results as that which I have just mentioned. My Lords, there is a clause which provides that leaseholders in bonâ fide occupation of their holdings shall, on the passing of this Act, be deemed to be tenants of their present tenancies, in like manner and subject to the same conditions as if their leases had expired on the passing of this Act. I do not think it is necessary to justify this proposition. I am aware that Mr. Gladstone, when he introduced his Bill in 1881, appeared to think that there was some principle involved in the exclusion of leaseholders from the Act. No doubt it was desirable in the course of that process to which I have before alluded, the gradual abolition of freedom of contract—it was desirable, at any rate, to appear to retain some shred of that freedom in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. But I cannot say that even in his exclusion of
  10
  leaseholders he has altogether refrained from dealing with them, because leaseholders under the contracts into which they had entered were bound at the expiration of their term to give up their holdings freely to the landlord who was owner; but under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman in 1881 he broke to this extent into the conditions of the tenancy of the leasehold, that he enacted that at the expiration of the term the tenants should be considered as tenants from year to year. It is an absolute fact that in excluding leaseholders from the Act of 1881 Mr. Gladstone did not save his principle by excluding them entirely, and, under these circumstances and for these reasons, however imperfectly described, Her Majesty's Government recommend that leaseholders should in future be admitted to the benefits of the Act; thus there will no longer be two classes of tenants living side by side under entirely different conditions, the one class having rights which are denied to the other. Without further remark I will pass on to the further clauses of the Bill. There is a provision with reference to town parks which may puzzle some of your Lordships who are not conversant with the affairs of Ireland as much as I confess it puzzled me. The Royal Commission recommended that, under certain limitations, town parks should be included in the Act of 1881. I understand that a town park in Ireland is a holding in the immediate neighbourhood of a town. So long as it is occupied by a resident in that town it is considered a town park, and, being so, was excluded from the operation of the Act of 1881. The complaint made by tenants of these parks is this— that because they happen to live in a town, because they occupy a farm the occupation of which they claim to be strictly in accordance with what is legally designated a farm holding, yet, because that holding is in the neighbourhood of a town, they are precluded from going to Court to have a fair rent fixed. As I said before, the Commission recommended that town parks should be included in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: Under certain limitations.
  EARL CADOGAN: Under certain limitations. Well, my Lords, we did not agree that it would be possible to admit all the town parks; but what

  11
  we do mean to do is to alter the definition of town park in our Act; and in the future, under this Act, the definition will be limited to those which are used as accommodation land, and not as a farm. To that extent the recommendations of the Royal Commission will be adopted. I now come to a more important provision which is contained in the Bill, one which refers to proceedings in ejectment—in other words, to evictions—a subject which has attracted so much and so widespread attention in the country during the last 12 months. It is hardly necessary for me in such an Assembly as this to enter at any length into an explanation of the right of ejectment, or, as it is more generally called, eviction. It is obvious that the right of eviction— which is simply the right of the owner to re-enter upon the occupation of his property when the tenant has forfeited the occupation by the omission to fulfil the conditions under which he has contracted to occupy—is a provision which may be said to be the only ultimate resort when the landowner fails to exact from the tenant the fulfilment of the terms of the occupation. It is difficult for me, my Lords, to deal with this subject without, perhaps, exciting sensibilities upon one side or the other. No one is more ready than I am to acknowledge that, taken altogether, it may be said that the landlords of Ireland in times past, and in recent times, have, with some notable exceptions, exercised this right, which legally belongs to them, with mercy and with forbearance. At the same time, scenes have taken place which it is impossible for us not to notice; and feelings on this subject have been aroused with which any Government, to whichever side in politics it might belong, is bound to do its best to deal. I may say further than this, that the power of eviction and the exercise of it is, in our view, not limited merely to the freewill of the landlord who exercises the right. It is impossible for any impartial observer of ejectments in Ireland not to notice that there is one potent factor in reference to this matter, to which I think attention has been insufficiently drawn—namely, the establishment by law of a six months' period of redemption. A six months' period is granted to defaulting tenants, within which they are entitled to re-enter and
  12
  to redeem the interest from which they have been temporarily evicted. The effect of this period of redemption has been this— that in order to make this six months' period of redemption run— at the end of which the landlord can finally exercise his right of dispossessing the tenant of his holding—it is necessary under the present law for the landlord to take proceedings and obtain a judgment in ejectment; and, not only that, but he must actually execute the judgment. Not only must judgment be obtained, but the landlord must exercise his right of ejectment before the six months' period of redemption is permitted to begin to run. See the position in which that places many landlords in Ireland. They do not object to the period of redemption being postponed. The landlord who has obtained judgment in ejectment cannot always exercise his own discretion as to when he executes that judgment, for he is often forced to execute it in order to make the six months' period of redemption begin to run. The Commissioners recommend that in cases of judgments for non-payment of rent the period of redemption should run from the time of verdict or decree, and not from the execution of judgment. We propose that notice shall be issued by the landlord, in a form which will be found in the Schedule of the Bill, when he obtains a writ in ejectment from the Court; that the landlord shall be required to serve that notice upon the tenant in the manner prescribed by the Court; that when the tenant receives that notice he shall, ipso facto, become a caretaker, and that the prescribed six months within which redemption can take place shall commence to run from that day. I should like to point out to the House the benefit that will accrue to both the landlords and tenants under the provision which I have explained. The House will perceive that the recommendation of the Commission was that the period of redemption should commence to run from the date of the decree, which would leave the tenant in a worse position than that which he now occupies, as it would be necessary, if the recommendation of the Commissioners were adopted, for the landlord to eject the tenant immediately after the decree was issued. Under the present proposal the six months for redemption will commence to run with

  13
  the serving of the notice upon the tenant, and thus the tenant need not be evicted, while the landlord will be saved the trouble and expense of evicting the tenant, who will, ipso facto, become a caretaker without having been first evicted. I do not think that I am overstating the case when I say that the effect of this proposed provision will be to reduce the number of evictions by one-half. I cannot give the House the exact figures relating to the subject, but I do not think that I am far wrong when I say that nearly four-fifths of the evictions in Ireland have occurred at the time of the execution of the judgment in ejectment, and not at the expiration of the six months' period for redemption. I, of course, admit that it will still be in the power of the landlord to evict the tenant after he becomes a caretaker, as he can at present, but the tenant, in that case, will still be entitled to his six months' period for redemption. My belief is that in the end this provision will be found to be of great advantage to both the parties concerned. Under the present system the tenant has to be evicted in the first place, before he can be re-admitted as a caretaker, whereas under this provision he will, ipso facto, upon the receipt of the notice, become a caretaker without having been evicted. The next class with whom the Bill proposes to deal is that of the middle-man. I am not sure that the middle-man will excite feelings of much sympathy in the minds of Englishmen, as they may, perhaps, not entirely appreciate the position he occupies in Ireland. They are a class of men not specially in favour in the Metropolis. The position of the middle-man in Ireland is this— he takes a holding from the landowner and he sub-lets it to different tenants. These sub-tenants may, under the Act of 1881, go into the Land Court and get their rents reduced, when the middle-man may find himself placed in the unfortunate position of finding that his sub-tenants have got their rents which they have to pay him reduced, while he himself is debarred from getting his own chief rent reduced, so that it may be that the rents he receives are less than which he pays to his superior landlord. This state of things is believed by Her Majesty's Government to constitute a genuine grievance on the part of the middle-man, and, therefore,
  14
  it is proposed by the Bill that where a middle-man finds himself in this uncomfortable position he shall be entitled to surrender his tenancy under certain conditions. I shall occupy your Lordships' attention for only a short time in dealing with the second great division of the Bill, which relates to the question of appeals. In 1884 Sir George Trevelyan called the attention of Parliament to the necessity for strengthening the Court of Appeal in the performance of its important duties, and he introduced a Bill to carry out his object. That Bill, however, did not obtain the assent of Parliament, and there is no doubt that some complaints have been made as to the inadequate manner in which the appeal business in connection with the Land Act has been carried on. We propose to enable the Lord Lieutenant to constitute an Appeal Commission consisting of two Divisions, and to associate with them the ordinary Judges of the Supreme Court or the most experienced of the County Court Judges, and we propose to return to the original practice of the Land Commission and to allow the parties to employ valuers free of expense in all cases where they think it necessary. I now come to a subject which, I confess, I approach with some fear lest I shall be unable clearly to convey our intentions to the House—namely, the equitable jurisdiction which we propose to set up under this Bill. By the term equitable jurisdiction I mean proposals for the relief of insolvent tenants, especially those who have become insolvent through no fault of their own, but in consequence of misfortunes over which they have had no control. In dealing with this question I must again refer to the speech which was delivered last night by Lord Hartington. He said—
  "I cannot entertain any doubt that if Parliament and the Government see their way to make some alteration for the recovery of rents and which will regulate evictions, if they can see their way to conferring upon some competent legal authority or Courts of Law some greater equitable powers, which shall give an assurance to the country that the extreme remedy of eviction shall only be resorted to when the process is not only legal but also just and equitable—any such change in the law, though I cannot hope that it would satisfy public opinion in Ireland, will go far to satisfy the opinion and the conscience of the people of the United Kingdom."
  It has been urged that there is no method of relief held out to the insolvent tenant, except that of going into

  15
  the Bankruptcy Court; but the view of the Government is that when you speak of insolvent tenants you are speaking of persons who may be divided into at least three classes. There are, in the first place, the cases in which tenants are insolvent from causes not only over which they have no control but which are merely temporary, and who, if reasonable time is afforded them, will be able to meet their liabilities. There are, in the second place, those who are in-solvent from no fault of their own, and who have no reasonable prospect of ever meeting their liabilities. In the third place, there are the cases of those who are unable to meet their liabilities from causes arising from their own improvidence and extravagance, and for whom it is not possible to claim the sympathy either of Parliament or the nation. With regard to the first of these classes —namely, the tenants who are insolvent but who might be able to meet their liabilities if reasonable time were given them—the Government do not think it necessary that they should be driven into the Bankruptcy Court. In such cases Her Majesty's Government propose that the County Court Judge, while granting the landlord the judgment to which he is entitled, shall direct a reasonable stay of execution; and for as long a period as the Judge shall determine the tenant shall not be removed from possession of his holding. It is hoped that during the period thus given a reasonable settlement may, in most cases, be arrived at between the landlord and the tenant, and that many evictions will thereby be prevented. In dealing with the other two classes, who are to a certain extent driven into bankruptcy, we provide that the County Court Judge shall have the power, for all purposes for which the Bankruptcy Court exists in Dublin, of a Judge in Bankruptcy in his own County Court, and that his jurisdiction shall extend over his own county. As the Bankruptcy Law is only administered in Dublin, the cost to a tenant who voluntarily goes into bankruptcy or the landlord who drives the tenant into bankruptcy is larger than is desirable, inasmuch as the cases to which the provisions of the Bill apply are limited to holdings, the rental of which does not exceed £50 per annum. Therefore, by giving County Court Judges jurisdiction in
  16
  every county, we have to a great extent simplified the jurisdiction of the Court of Bankruptcy, and brought it within the reach of tenants all over Ireland. With reference to the class of insolvent tenants who are insolvent from circumstances over which they have no control, and from no fault of their own, we propose as follows:—Where inability to pay arises from no misconduct or improvidence on the part of the tenant the County Court Judge may order a composition of the old debts, including the rent, and permit the tenant to continue in occupation of his holding so long as the Judge may determine, paying for the use of it a fair rent to be fixed by the Court. The general principle upon which this clause proceeds is that considerable indulgence may be shown to a man whose insolvency may be innocent, and whose good faith and rectitude are established to the satisfaction of the Court. And lastly, in the case of those insolvent tenants who have arrived at the last state of insolvency from their own fault, extravagance, idleness, or other causes, they will be left to the operation of the ordinary law of the land; and with reference to them the only change made is that the course of bankruptcy will, as I have said before, lie in the office of the County Court Judge who administers in each county in Ireland. These are the chief provisions with respect to the equitable jurisdiction to be found in the Bill. I am very sensible that in a matter of such extreme difficulty and importance it would have been better if your Lordships had before you the exact terms in which the clauses are drawn. There is one other matter to which I must refer before I conclude, and that is the question of the remission of the rates to landlords who, from intimidation and other similar causes, do not receive the rents upon which they are rated. This relief will operate in two cases. In the first place, if a tenant is in occupation and does not pay rent, the landlord will be exempted from rates. If the land remains unoccupied in consequence of a system of intimidation which prevents the landlord from letting his land, the landlord will also be exempted from the payment of rates during the time that his land is unlet. I have only one further remark to make of a general character. It relates to the fact that

  17
  Her Majesty's Government have thought it their duty to introduce this measure into this House of Parliament. There are those who hold the opinion that this House is not qualified to legislate upon matters relating to land, especially to land in Ireland. They believe, inasmuch as most Members of this House are connected with land solely as owners, this is not a fit Assembly to deal with a measure affecting the tenure of land with regard both to owners and tenants. This view of the subject has been taken in public on a late occasion by an illustrious statesman, whose opinion on these questions ought to be of value, and whose statements I cannot allow to go uncontradicted. A few days ago, Sir William Harcourt made the following statement with regard to legislation in the House of Lords on the subject of land in Ireland. He said—
  "It was the legislation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, so bitterly opposed by the Irish landlords, so violently opposed by the Tory Party, so mauled and mangled by the House of Lords, which was the first attempt on the part of the British Parliament to do its duty towards the country which it had undertaken to govern."
  I had not the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House when the Act of 1870 was passed, but I have a clear recollection when the Act of 1881 was passed in this House; and I think I remember that the noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) who had charge of the measure during its progress in this House, and who with infinite tact, good temper, and ability, guided its fortunes through this House, bore testimony to the influence on the Bill of the discussions in the House of Lords, in direct variance with the views which have been expressed by Sir William Harcourt. My Lords, it would be presumptuous in me to enter into conflict with so eminent a statesman as Sir William Harcourt; but provided myself with a "sling and a stone," in the shape of an extract from Hansard, which I will venture to read to the House. After the Bill of 1881 had been read a third time in the House, and after many an anxious discussion had taken place between the Members of this House and the Members of "another place" on the subject of the provisions of the Bill, the noble (Lord Lord Carlingford) in this House made the following remarks:—
  18
  "I have only one word to say. In our opinion, this Bill, if it passes into law in the form in which it has now come from the House of Commons, will not have sacrificed any one of the essential principles which it originally contained, or fail, so far as we and Parliament are concerned, to attain substantially the objects it has in view. I am quite willing to add that, with respect to its details, in our opinion it has been distinctly improved by the collision and comparison of opinions of the majorities of the two Houses of Parliament, looking at it, no doubt, from opposite points of view. That is our conviction, which I am glad to state to the House."— (3 Hansard, [265] 10.)
  That is an answer to the statement of Sir William Harcourt that your Lordships are disposed to maul or mangle any measure which has for its object the settlement of the Land Question in Ireland. This Bill makes provision against a state of things which we hope further legislation before long will remove. It is, no doubt, a temporary measure, but it is temporary only in so far as it deals with matters which we believe and expect will not last for long. It is an instalment, but it must not be considered in the sense of a composition. With respect to the land in Ireland, it is, perhaps, hopeless to expect any finality; but if we are ever to reach the goal at which we are all aiming, it will be, to use the memorable words of Mr. Gladstone, by patient perseverance in well doing and by steady adherence to justice. It would be idle to deny that in passing this measure we are asking noble Lords in this House and those in whom they are deeply interested to make great and important sacrifices; but we believe they will take a larger and wider view of their own duties and responsibilities than regard to their own interests would imply, and that those interests, in the long run, will be subordinated to that which they must acknowledge to be the welfare and prosperity of the country. This measure has been drawn up with a strict regard for the rights of property; and, at the same time, with an earnest desire to meet the difficulties and remedy the defects of the laws relating to land as they at present exist. It is drawn up, as we believe, in a spirit of fairness and a spirit of justice. It is in that spirit I have endeavoured to present it to your Lordships, and I submit it with due deference but with perfect confidence to the wisdom, patriotism, and statesmanship of the House.
  Bill to amend the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, and the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885; and for other purposes connected therewith—Presented (The LORD PRIVY SEAL).
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl who has just sat down (Earl Cadogan) has more than once in his speech made graceful apologies to your Lordships for his incompetence to deal with what we all confess to be a very difficult subject. The noble Earl may have been induced to make this apology from the fact that there has been some criticism out of doors that a Bill affecting such great and important questions should be introduced by one who has not as yet the authority of a Cabinet Minister. I am bound to say that I do not feel inclined to join in that criticism. In the first place, I have always remarked that the noble Earl when making a statement for the Government does it with great clearness, with great sympathy excited among his Friends, and absolutely without irritation to his opponents. I quite understand that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord Ashbourne) should have felt some modesty in being the promoter of a Bill one of the principal provisions of which he condemned in such burning words not very long ago. I have no complaint to make of the account the noble Earl has given of the history of Irish land legislation. He might have gone further and have referred to the Encumbered Estates Act which was introduced with the best intentions into Ireland and failed, from its inconsistency with Irish customs. Again, it would be inconsistent for me, after my recent complaints of the same person being Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, to suggest that he should take upon himself also the duties of the Chief Secretary. What I complain of is that the noble Earl should have gone out of his way to make an attack on the evidence of the chief civil servant of Her Majesty's Government— one placed in the position he now occupies after a very distinguished man whom they thought not equal to the task. The noble Earl attacked General Buller's evidence on one point. He represented the General as having said, to the disparagement of the late Government, that all the legislation on land in Ireland had been in favour of the rich against the poor. I
  20
  thought it almost impossible, because we all remember the great arguments used against the measures both of 1870 and 1881, when the argument was entirely founded on the contention that our measures were contrary to justice and political economy and injurious not to the tenant but to the landlord. In referring to the General's evidence I find that he said that until lately the legislation with regard to land in Ireland had always been in favour of the rich against the poor. This phrase, until lately, absolutely cut the ground from under the noble Lord. The noble Earl gave us an account of some of the principal points in the Report of the Commission appointed by Her Majesty's Government. The Report stated that it was impossible for a large portion of the tenants to pay even judicial rents. This was stoutly denied in the House of Commons, but it was not so stoutly denied hero. Lord Salisbury only doubted the fact, and promised a remedy of a conditional character if the case was proved. The Commissioners' Report on this point is precise, and from the evidence given before them, and from the fact that bankers had limited their assistance, and from statistics from the Registrar General, show how much the prices of produce have fallen— I believe it is 18 per cent. The noble Earl has quoted several of the salient points of the Report. Some of these might, or might not, be used as arguments for some measure of repression. But I put thes8 aside on the present occasion. Though it may be convenient to the Government to call attention to a Bill and then read it a first time, I do not think it is the most convenient course to this House, to the country, or to "another place," in regard to a Bill of this character. It may be to the promoters an advantage, because they have a perfect knowledge of the Bill, to make a statement and then adjourn without its being answered by those who are placed at a great disadvantage through having no opportunity of seeing the Bill. Another point in this Bill is the recommendation of the Commission with regard to leaseholders, and the Government adopt that recommendation with certain limitations. One of the recommendations alluded to by the noble Earl was in reference to the question of the revision of rents. The Commission strongly recommended that

  21
  the term of 15 years should be limited to five years; but there is to be no revision of rents proposed by this Bill. The noble Earl quoted the speech of Lord Hartington yesterday as upsetting all the statements of fact as made by the Commission, after hearing the whole evidence and weighing and considering every word of it. I can only say that this is another instance of what Mr. Goschen says—that Lord Hartington, though not in Office, is the person who has the power. Not once, but twice, the noble Earl fortified his case with the obiter dicta of Lord Hartington. It is perfectly open now, after the speech of the noble Earl, for any Peer to enter into the debate. But I cannot help thinking that it would be imprudent to enter into a discussion of the Bill before we have had an opportunity of reading it. I would point out, however, that I think some explanation will be expected as to the lop-sided and onesided character of this measure. With regard to the leaseholders, we refrained from dealing with them; but the noble Earl had given reasons for going further. The Land Commission has a comprehensive plan, whether right or wrong, for dealing with both sides of the question, and it is the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to enable the leaseholders to come into Court. It is clear that these leaseholders are in a better position than the annual tenants, for their rents will be revised according to a much lower scale than those of the annual tenants some four or five years ago, for whom no reduction is proposed. Another Land Bill is promised, and I confidently hope that some statement will be made this evening, which will give us a notion of the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government. I should like to know why the leaseholders should be put on a much better footing than the great masses of annual tenants. Some of these points must be met and explained by the Government. I must say that Her Majesty's Government have introduced a Bill in this House with singular advantage over that which we possess, because they are perfectly certain to carry whatever they propose, whereas we are in a very different position. [The Marquess of SALISBURY dissented.] The noble Marquess shakes his head, but I rather think, on the whole, that we shall find this Bill will be passed in its present
  22
  shape, or in a shape perfectly agreeable to Her Majesty's Government.
  EARL COWPERsaid, that, having presided over the Royal Commission to which reference had been made, he would give a few reasons for what he considered its principal recommendation. The noble Earl had referred to the trouble the Commissioners had experienced, and the number of times they had sat and the number of questions they had put. He certainly sympathized with those who had to wade through the whole of the evidence. That evidence, however, required very careful reading by those who wished to understand the matter, because, in a mas3 of evidence of that sort, it was very easy to pick out arguments for almost any conceivable course. All he could say was, that his own impression, after hearing the evidence, was that there was very great depression and very great difficulty experienced among the tenants, and particularly those who had no capital—and he was sorry to say that there was a vast number of tenants who were in that position—in paying rent in Ireland, even rents which were fair two or three years ago. The majority of the Commission, after a long and careful consideration, came to the conclusion that something really must be done to help these unfortunate tenants. Of course, they were quite aware of the difficulty, inconvenience—and some people might, perhaps, say the injustice—of departing from the arrangement that was made only six years ago. But when they considered all the arguments that were used in favour of that arrangement, which was a distinct interference with freedom of contract and with the rights of the landlord—when they considered all the reasons which induced Parliament to pass the Act of 1881, it seemed to him, at least, that every argument which was used then might be fairly used now to meet the altered state of circumstances. He could not understand anyone who was convinced by the arguments used in 1881, when the tenant was so helpless that an outside authority had to fix the rent, not feeling that if that rent turned out, by the unforeseen and continuous fall of prices, to be such as he could not pay, it would be right, however disagreeable or painful to their feelings, to step in again with some plan by which his rent would be such as he was able to pay. After turning

  23
  all these things over, they thought they might depart so far from the contract that Lad been made as to make the rent now payable in the same proportion to produce, roughly speaking, as it was then. This would make the land lord share in the fall that had taken place, and not have it all thrown upon the tenant. At the same time, it would leave the landlord in such a position that if prices again became as they were before he might have the same rent as before; and if by any chance there 'was a rise of prices during a number of seasons, he might have even more rent than he had had before. In fact, he would be put in the position of receiving the same share of the proceeds of the farm that he got before. That would not be, at any rate, a very violent departure from what might justly be demanded. There might be, and there were, objections to what the Commission proposed; but he maintained that some relief ought really to be given to the tenants. He was very glad that the Government seemed to be of that opinion also. The proposals to stay evictions, and give the Judge power, if necessary, to make a reduction in the rent if he considered it too great, were certainly reliefs. These matters required to be very carefully gone into on the second reading; but, as far he could see, the plan had this fatal objection—this fatal omission—that in order to get a reduction the tenant would be obliged to force the landlord's hand and compel him to get a writ of ejectment. The tenants whom they were most anxious to help, the tenants who had done their best to meet their obligations, were in such a position that they had but few savings at their back. Yet they would have to draw upon their savings to pay. They would have no help at all, though they were the men whom they most wanted to help. He wished sincerely that something could be told their Lordships and the country as to what this purchase scheme of the Government was. The more the question of purchase was examined, the more difficult it seemed. But if it was such that it was to give any relief to the good and industrious and better sort of tenants in Ireland, the sooner they were told so the better. He thought, in honest justice, that they should have their fair share of relief. The majority of their Lordships were very anxious that the Union be-
  24
  tween England and Ireland should be preserved, and he was very much against Home Rule, as he thought it would inevitably lead to a complete rupture of the Union. The greatest hope and the greatest stay against this were these industrious and well-behaved tenants of the North. If they lost them they would have a very much more difficult battle to fight. It would be a difficult one to fight anyhow, but it would be very much more difficult if they were foolish enough to lose this well-behaved and industrious class of tenants. From what he saw in Ireland, he honestly thought that if these tenants did not get assistance they would be in as bad a position as an improvident and idle and bankrupt tenant in the South, and their loyalty would be very much shaken. For these reasons, therefore, he did hope that if there was to be any purchase and any chance of relief held out to them it would be very speedily made known. As far as he could gather from the statement of the noble Earl he really thought that they would be rather left out in the cold, while bankrupt tenants in the South might, perhaps, be relieved from some of the hardships to which they were now exposed.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he was glad to find that some change was to be made in the matter of evictions. There were several endowed schools in Ireland which were supported by estates scattered over the country. One of these schools—theRaphoe School—was in the County of Donegal, and the accounts of which now showed a debt of £900. The estate which supported it was in the same county. The tenants on that estate had not adopted the Plan of Campaign, but they had, with one exception, declined to pay any rent whatever, although the rental of the estate was at least 15 per cent below the Government valuation on the aggregate. During the last three years there had been three sales of the tenants' interest that the Board knew of—one at about 21 years' purchase, one at 45, and a third at 51 years' purchase. So it was evident that the tenants had a valuable interest in their farms. If this school had not been aided by drawing on the balances of other schools, it would have had to be closed in consequence of the non-payment of the rents which formed | its endowments. "With regard to leaseholders, considerable difference of opinion

  25
  had prevailed, and the power to break leases, while in some cases it might be beneficial to the tenant, would, in many others operate in the contrary direction, where the tenants were holding under leases at very low rents.
  THE EARL OF DUNBAVENsaid, it was impossible to criticize a measure of so complex a character, or to form a final opinion upon it, until they had seen the Bill; but so far as he had seen from his noble Friend's (Earl Cadogan) speech, it would be of considerable benefit to the country, and it would do a great deal to render more smooth and easy the relations between landlord and tenant, which, at the present time, were so strained. The main provisions of the Bill appeared to be the admission of leaseholders to the benefits of the Land Act of 1881, and the granting to the County Court Judges of certain discretionary powers which they had not hitherto possessed; and in those two main provisions of the Bill he was happy to find himself in agreement. He did the best he could in 1881 to enforce his opinion that leaseholders ought to have been admitted to the benefits of the Act of that year, and he rejoiced to find that they were now to be admitted. He did not quite clearly understand what the position of leaseholders was to be, but no doubt that would be made more clear when the Bill was presented. As to the discretion vested in the County Court Judges, he could not agree with the noble Earl opposite who presided over the Commission (Earl Cowper), that it would only apply to the case of bankrupt tenants. As he (the Earl of Dunraven) understood it, the County Court Judges would have additional powers of postponing the issue of decrees, and allowing the tenants to remain longer on their holdings. That would be an enormous benefit to the tenant, and no detriment whatever to the landlord. He was sure that owners of land would be only too glad to have any fair tribunal which would relieve them of the heavy burden of responsibility which now rested on their shoulders. They were tired of the misrepresentation and distortion to which their conduct was subjected in "another place." He could understand the justice of not levying rates on the landlord where he received no rent; but as the rates would become higher he would have to pay more out of the land that was let. So that was as
  26
  broad as it was long. He was glad the Government had not shortened the term of 15 years, because he believed if they had shortened it to five the result would have been disastrous. Tenants would not have been more satisfied than they were now, and it was obvious that it would keep the country in a state of turmoil without any intermission whatever. His opinion was now, and always had been, that to attempt to fix a fair rent to the satisfaction of the parties concerned was an absolute impossibility. He thought originally it might have been better to settle the question by means of what was called a "produce rent." That was to say that a certain fixed rent should have been decided as a fair rent based on current prices, and that it should have been raised and lowered according to the changes of prices on a regular scale; but for that to have been of any use, it would have been necessary to revise the rent not every five years or every 10 years, but yearly; and that would have required great machinery, and would have been very difficult to carry out. A method such as that, though partially satisfactory, would not have been entirely satisfactory, because other factors beside the price of produce had to be considered. There was the quantity and quality of produce and the price of labour to be calculated. Tenants would not be satisfied to have rents raised if prices were high because of a scanty yield. It was absolutely impossible to decide what was fair rent; and that, he believed, was the opinion on all sides. He was rejoiced to hear the noble Earl say that Her Majesty's Government intended, in a short time, to bring in a larger measure dealing with the whole question of land by purchase. He was satisfied that in the transfer of land to the occupier, in substitution of the absurd system of dual ownership invented by Mr. Gladstone and his Party, lay the only chance of salvation for Ireland. He believed such a scheme could be carried out without calling upon Imperial aid or Imperial money—at any rate to any large extent. The late Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) had declared that such was the ease; but he added that it would be impossible, unless a Parliament was set up in Dublin. That was the opinion of the late Prime Minister, the Leader of a large section of the Liberal Party, that a scheme could be worked out and ful-

  27
  filled to buy out the rights of landlords ill Ireland without calling upon British credit or British money; "but this could be accomplished only if his former scheme was carried out. His (Lord Dunraven's) belief was that it could be carried out without the setting out a Parliament in Dublin. He sincerely hoped Her Majesty's Government would now get both time and opportunity to bring in a large and comprehensive measure dealing with that matter. He did not know that it was material to discuss the opinion of Sir Redvers Buller as to whether the law in Ireland was in favour of the rich or the poor; but he would remind the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) that General Buller was comparing the condition of the country at a time when there was practically no law with its condition "but a short time ago," when, in his opinion, "what law there was was really on the side of the rich." Mr. Gladstone, speaking in 1881, declared the law in Ireland was much more in favour of the tenant than the law in England. That obviously related to the Land Act of 1870. General Buller could not possibly have referred to a state of things prior to 1870—that is, 16 years ago—when lie alluded to the law being in favour of the rich "a short time ago." He was certainly referring to the same laws which Mr. Gladstone had declared to be so favourable to the tenants—that is, to the poor. He believed this measure would be a salutary one, and of great service; and he believed that noble Lords opposite on the Front Bench would be obliged to admit that it did not fairly come within the category of agrarian laws of the 19th century, prominent among which were the Land Acts of 1881 and 1870, which were described the other day by Mr. John Morley as laws which had caused more woe to the people of Ireland than all the penal laws of the 18th century.
  Bill read 1a (No. 58.)
  EARL CADOGANsaid, he proposed to take the second reading of the Bill on Thursday, the 21st of April.

LAND TRANSFER BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOE (Lord HALSBURY): My Lords, the subject to which I have to call attention is one of
  28
  very great importance, and has for considerably more than a quarter of a century occupied the attention of those who were best qualified to consider and to deal with it. I should feel great diffidence in speaking to your Lordships on the subject if I thought the previous legislation with regard to it had been so complete a failure as it is sometimes said to be. But I do not think it is accurate to describe the previous measures as failures. I believe it would be more true to say that they were steps in advance, enabling us to accomplish what they undoubtedly failed to accomplish. It had been my intention more than a year ago to introduce a Bill on this subject, and for that purpose I obtained from your Lordships' House a Bill, which afterwards became law, to suspend the operations of the Land Registry in London; so that in the event of your Lordships passing legislation on the subject of land registration, the Registry might be made part of my scheme. The Bill which I have to present to your Lordships now proposes to deal in two ways with what have been found to be defects in the existing system, or which, at all events, were matters which it was not thought desirable to deal with on previous occasions. Public opinion was not then ripe on the subject; but attention has since been directed to it in various ways. I find that since I gave Notice of my Bill at the beginning of last year a great variety of schemes have been under discussion. There has been an interesting series of letters in The Times, and several books relating to the subject have appeared. I mention these various publications and proposals for this reason. I have had the pleasure of reading them; but I cannot say that I agree with them all, because they do not agree with one another. Nevertheless I find in all of them considerable support for the proposals which it was my intention to make a year ago. There are several matters which I cannot doubt will be subjects of debate when the second reading of the present Bill is moved; but I believe that, instead of defending point by point the proposals I have to make, it will be better for me now to state in broad outlines the nature of the scheme. The first proposal is, that there shall be a Land Registry, and that that Land Registry shall not be something in the

  29
  nature of a legal office in London, but shall be a Board consisting of persons experienced both in conyeyancing and in organization and administration. It is to be constituted in London, and what I particularly wish to point out is, that the scheme is intended to be capable of greater expansion. The great difficulties in the way of establishing a system of registration hitherto, have been the magnitude of the operations contemplated and the necessity of applying the system all over the Kingdom. My proposal is, that branch offices shall be established from time to time, and that the work shall be done gradually. As soon as an Order in Council says that a registration district shall be established, certain consequences will follow which I will now proceed to describe. The Act of 1875, although I do not admit it has been a failure in the sense in which some people describe it, undoubtedly did not fulfil the expectations of its authors in causing land to be registered to the extent that was anticipated. One chief reason for this was that the registration was voluntary. It is not true to say that compulsory registration would be an interference with the liberty of the subject. It would be just as true to say that the Statute of Frauds or any other statute regulating the validity of certain contracts was an interference with the liberty of the subject. The compulsion which I propose is that upon the next transfer of land—the next time the owner of land proposes to give a legal interest to his transferee—it must be brought upon the register. When I first proposed that a system of registration should exist I felt very much pressed by the question as to what was to be registered, and whether it was possible to give a title which should include the boundaries. On that question my views have been considerably modified by what I have learnt since. I have heard with great surprise that there exists at the present moment a register in which every yard of land in this country has been registered by a tribunal which has worked noiselessly and inexpensively. The Land Tax Commissioners have a register of every yard of land in this country, and it has been formed with a degree of accuracy and precision that to me is absolutely astonishing. The Commissioners have from time to time without remuneration,
  30
  without expenso to anybody, been constantly exercising jurisdiction, and deciding questions of adjoining boundaries. That system exists in every county of England. I think there are 380 land tax districts in England in which that system exists. Under the Act of 1875 there are two or three different things which may be registered. I do not think anyone would recommend the registration of assurances as distinguished from registration of title. Under Lord Cairns' Act a person can register either an absolute or qualified title, and that Act, it appeared to me, afforded the materials on which a registration of title might be founded. It appeared to me that in the present state of the world's history, and with the present spread of knowledge and the mode of telling people what was being done, it was possible to avail one's self of it and to make a possessory title in a comparatively short period become an indefeasible title. The proposal I have to make is this, that when a person shall have given such notices as the Land Board shall prescribe—by advertisement or otherwise— that person shall after a period of five years be able to apply to the Land Board for a certificate of indefeasible title. My Lords, that is the nature of the proposal. It seems to me that the same operations might or might not, at the option of the person desiring his title to be registered, apply to boundaries. The boundaries might also be so registered as to obtain an absolutely indefeasible title for them at the end of the five years. My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, the Act of 1875 was in some respects imperfect from the state of the law at that time; but the Conveyancing Act and the Settled Land Act have altered that state of the law, and have facilitated a measure for the general registration of land. I cannot expect or hope that the subject which I am about to introduce to your Lordships' notice should pass without debate. On the contrary, in the discussion which may take place on the second reading and in Committee, I look to your Lordships for the assistance which will enable a measure to be perfected, which, if it can be perfected, undoubtedly is for the advantage of all. My Lords, I should say, in the first place, that, leaving absolutely untouched the power of settlement and will, I propose to make the devolu-

  31
  tion of real property the same as if it be personalty, and to introduce a real representative, In the first place, the executor would be made the real representative, independently of any question of intestacy. As to the subject of estates tail there will be two proposals in the Bill. First, in respect to existing estates tail, I propose that wherever a person of full age has power without the consent of anyone else to enlarge his estate tail by deed duly enrolled, then the law shall do it for him. I propose next that estates tail should not be created in future, and that the Statute which is known as "The Statute of Westminster the Second" should be repealed. My Lords, that of course may be a serious subject of debate; but I believe that some such alteration will be found necessary in order to render the other provisions of the Bill possible or reasonable. I believe it will be found to the advantage of the owners of property that all property should be subject to the same legal incidents, and that if there is to be an attack upon property it will be resisted with much greater force, if it be possible to say that it includes all property and not merely property which has any peculiar privilege, because then it can be said that an attack on property is an attack on property of all kinds. My Lords, the other proposals in the Bill are comparatively immaterial, inasmuch as they merely provide the machinery ancillary to the main provisions. One provision is founded on the analogy of the plan adopted in some of the Australian Colonies, and it is in the nature of an insurance fund. This can be done without any considerable expense to the State or to those who desire to transfer their land. The effect of it will be to make the working of the Bill much more easy, and the experience of the Australian Colonies shows that so small a sum as a halfpenny or even a farthing in the pound will be found amply sufficient to provide a fund for all such contingencies that may arise from fraud or otherwise in relation to land register. I will leave the Bills in your Lordships' hands, hoping I may receive the assistance of my noble and learned Friends, and hoping that we shall be able to do that which we all desire—to cheapen and facilitate the transfer of land. At the present time the holders of land are are much less disposed to continue to
  32
  hold it than in former times. It would be a wise and prudent course to facilitate any system by which land can—with advantage to both vendor and vendee—be distributed, and I therefore implore your Lordships' co-operation in the Bill which I now propose to the House.
  Bill to further simplify titles, and facilitate the transfer of land in England —Presented (The LORD CHANCELLOR.)
  THE EARL or SELBOENEsaid, that, although that was not the stage for a discussion of the Bill, he would venture to say at once that it was a very large and important measure. There were two points on which he had heard the noble and learned Lord (Lord Halsbury) with great pleasure, because in his (Lord Selborne's) own contribution to the working out of that great problem, he certainly arrived distinctly at those two conclusions. The first was, that if they wanted to do anything in that matter, they must determine to make the measure compulsory, provided always the country was willing to pay for the necessary machinery. It was idle, as long as it was left optional, to talk about general registration or real simplification of title. The second point was, that he proposed to take a short period of time within which, by the process of the registry, and after all proper notices, a possessory title could be converted into an absolute title. He had always thought that any measure of registration which did not tend, within reasonable limits of time, to the clearance of title would fail to accomplish the object of greatly cheapening the expense of transfer. It was not possible, without a general examination into all the titles of the Kingdom, to clear them at once. But it was possible to say that, after a limited time and with proper precautions, the title might, by proper authority, be declared absolute. It did not alarm him in the least that his noble and learned Friend should turn estates tail for the future into fee-simple estates, for it was only applying to real estate the same rule which was now applicable to personalty. Notwithstanding that rule, no difficulty had been found in making reasonable settlements of personalty; and, although they could have no entails, he did not think there would be any any such difficulty as to land. He owned that if his noble and learned Friend

  33
  had prohibited all settlements it would have been a different matter, because it would have made it necessary for every provision for members of a family out of land to take the form of charge or mortgage, which anyone who was conversant with the subject would know might be an alteration for the worse. There was one other matter—the Law of Descent. Public opinion in this country had long since been in favour of some alteration. Without any hostility to the principle of primogeniture, he had no hesitation in saying that if an alteration were made in the present law, it must be in the direction proposed. But he hoped that part of the Bill which related to a real representative would be found to be very carefully framed; because he could not think it possible to vest enormous landed estates in persons having only a fiduciary character, and no beneficial interest, under obligations similar to those which now attached to executors, without obstructing for a considerable time the proper discharge of the duties attaching to landed property, and preventing the acceptance of such trusts by those who might be the fittest persons to undertake them, especially in the present state of the market for land.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that he had listened with great interest to the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Halsbury), and would give him every assistance in his power in dealing with this important and difficult subject. He rose, not for the purpose of criticizing the statement, but to ask for an explanation on one or two points. He understood the noble and learned Lord to state that, after a title had been registered for a certain number of years, it became indefeasible. Of course, the matter would require great care if the real owner was to be precluded after five years from claiming the estate unless he was to be given some kind of notice. He did not quite understand, if an indefeasible title was to be given to the person who had been on the register for five years, what was the use of the insurance fund. If he bought a piece of land and took a title on the register, and it should afterwards turn out that the person who conveyed to him had no real title, would he get an absolute title; or would he get compensation out of the insurance fund and the real owner get the title to the
  34
  land; or did his noble and learned Friend propose that the process should be reversed? The Australian, system was that if a person purchased a piece of land and was placed on the register, and it turned out that the vendor had no real title, the purchaser obtained no absolute title, but compensation out of the insurance fund. The real owner got the title to the land. His noble and learned Friend seemed to reverse that system, and proposed that the person last on the register should hold the land, and the real owner should have compensation out of the insurance fund. It was very questionable whether the Australian system was not better. He entirely approved his noble and learned Friend's proposal, that realty should descend in the same way as personalty, and it was very important to carry out that principle, as it was one for which many had long contended. It was quite true that anyone could make a will dealing with land of which he was owner as the law now stood; but it was also true that many persons did not make wills; and, as a Law Officer, he had been very much, struck with the many cases in which property escheats to the Crown for want of a will in case of illegitimacy, showing that intestacy was common. He had known extremely hard cases under the existing law, and he rejoiced that the Lord Chancellor proposed to make this change. In one case he was acquainted with a labouring man had invested almost his entire savings in land, and died suddenly without leaving a will. The result was that a distribution of his property took place which inflicted very great hardship upon some of his family, the distribution being in a manner which it was quite certain the man himself would never have dreamt of making. He would like to know who was to be registered. Was it intended to register a settlement of life estate, showing the different persons having title, or only to register the person or persons owning the fee? With regard to the cost of registration, he was persuaded that unless it was made simple and cheap to place a title on the register registration would not take place, and people would trust to getting equitable titles. It was essential to remember that this proposal was not made for the benefit of existing landowners; but because it was believed

  35
  that, in the public interest, there should be a simple means of passing land from one person to another. Previous attempts at registration had failed, because registration was made so expensive that no inducement was given to register. They must now endeavour to reverse that process by making registration as cheap as possible. The Lord Chancellor stated that power was reserved in the Bill, in the event of any person having been deprived of land to which he was entitled, to enable the Court to order compensation out of the insurance fund or the restoration of the land. The legal owner was always to be the person registered. It was not every person who had been on the register for five years who could at the end of that time ask for an indefeasible title, but only those who had complied with the provisions which the Land Board would enforce. The Bill was supplemented to, and would be incorporated with, the Act of 1875, in which there were a variety of provisions under which any person who had a right to come on the register might, by his caveat, have a case submitted to the High Court of Justice, whose decision would be final.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, that with reference to the point his noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) had referred to, power was reserved by the Bill, in the events mentioned, to the Court empowered to deal with the matter either to order the real owner of the land to receive compensation out of the insurance fund, or to order the land to be restored to him. With respect to the person who was to be registered, he might say that it was to be the legal owner who was always to be on the register. Under the Settled Land Act, the tenant for life had power to dispose of the estate, the purchase-money being paid to trustees for the benefit of those entitled. Registration, therefore, would make provision for those circumstances. All tenants for life would be entered on the register, so that the whole condition of an estate would be seen by looking at the register. With reference to the period of five years required for obtaining an indefeasible title, the provisions of the Bill were of this character. It was not every person who had been on the register for five years who could, at the end of that time, come and ask for
  36
  an indefeasible title. The proposal of the Bill was that any person who at any time was on the register should be able to propose to the Land Registrar that he should accept a possessory title as the commencement of the five years necessary for an indefeasible title. Proper persons were then intrusted with the duty of making inquiry; and, in the event of that being satisfactory, at the end of five years an order was made conferring the title as indefeasible on compliance with the various provisions that it had been thought expedient to impose on the applicant. The Bill was ancillary to, and would form part of, the Act of 1875.
  Bill read la. (No. 57.)

  SHERIFFS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
  (The Lord Chancellor.)
  (No. 50.) SECOND BEADING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to consolidate all the Statutes relating to this subject, the first of which had been passed in the reign of Edward I., and the last in the 44th of Her Majesty's. The title of the various Acts which it was proposed to consolidate occupied six pages, and any persons who desired to make themselves acquainted with the laws relating to Sheriffs had to read all those Acts. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that it was a great hardship which was imposed now-a-days upon country gentlemen that they should have to serve as Sheriffs, and when the Bill got into Committee he should bring forward a proposal that would have the effect of relieving them from some portion of their present onerous duties.
  LORD HALSBIJRYsaid, that this was purely a consolidation measure, which depended, as to its object, upon being passed rapidly, and if there were any opposition of any kind to it, it must necessarily be withdrawn.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ITALY AND THE GERMAN POWERS—RUMOURED ALLIANCE.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  LORD STEATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I rise to put the Question of which I have given Notice to Her Majesty's Government. It is not at all my wish to address the House at length on foreign policy, for which this would not be a proper season. It would be too long even to enumerate the journals in which the statement I refer to has been mentioned, and which comprise the best known in Great Britain and in Europe. The Standard of March 16 and of to-day might be particularly specified, as the Government are not, perhaps, inclined to disregard that organ. The alleged union of Italy with the German Powers might be fertile of results which it would become diplomatists to meditate. Among others, it would seem calculated to retard the foreign occupation of Bulgaria, from which endless inconveniences are justly apprehended. It would tend to guarantee tranquillity upon the Continent during the year which we have entered. It is, therefore, most important to the financial, the political, and military world, that an official statement should be heard upon the subject. Nothing unusual or unprecedented is required. In 1879 we were informed by the Government of that time that Austria and Germany had formed a new and, as it was thought, a satisfactory relation, although this country had not entered into it. The announcement came not only from the Government, but from the noble Marquess who now directs the Foreign Office. Supposing the alliance formed, it would be, no doubt, desirable to know what Powers were likely to accede to it, and in what manner it would bear upon the difficulties the Eastern Question has presented since the autumn of 1885. But it would not be prudent to approach the Government with too much interrogation. Whatever falls from them will be heard with curiosity in this House, and even far beyond its limits. The noble Lord then asked, Whether the repeated statement of an alliance between Italy and the German Powers was well founded?
  THE PRIME MINISTEK AND SECEETAEY or STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIES (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I suppose my noble Friend, when he
  38
  asks, "Whether the repeated statement of an alliance between Italy and the German Powers is well founded," means to ask, whether any Treaty has been signed between Italy and the German Powers? An alliance is so vague and general a phrase that I do not feel that it would be possible, under any circumstances, to give any answer. However, even if I could persuade my noble Friend to put his Question in a more accurate form, it would not be possible for me to gratify his wish, for I cannot give information which I do not myself possess. I am wholly unaware whether any Treaty has been signed between Italy and the German Powers. We have received no information upon the subject, and I do not know whether any information can be obtained.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TRANSFER OF REGISTRY, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts by making better provision for the registry of British ships; and for other purposes—Was presented by The Lord Stanley of Preston; read 1a (No. 59.)
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Church Patronage٭ (26).
Committee—Report—Law of Evidence Amendment (23).

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall he read a second time after Friday the 24th day of June next:
That no Bill originating in this House authorising any inclosure of lands under special report of the Land Commissioners for England, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 10th day of May next:
That no Bill originating in this House confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 10th day of May next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons authorising any inclosure of lands under special report of the Land Commissioners for England, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a second time after Friday the 1st day of July next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a second time after Friday the 1st day of July next:
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with amendments these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended:
That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill after Monday the 25th day of April next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice after Friday the 20th day of May next.
That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Friday the 20th day of May next:
Ordered, That the said orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 35.)

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—APPOINTMENT OF SIR THOMAS ESMONDE, M.P., HIGH SHERIFF OF CO. WATERFORD.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF ORMONDErose to ask the noble Lord behind him (Lord Brabourne), Whether he intends to
1024
bring on the Motion which stands in his name on the Paper for to-morrow (Friday) evening, relating to the appointment of Sir Thomas Esmonde as High. Sheriff of County Waterford?
LORD BRABOURNE,in reply, said, that he was glad to have that opportunity of stating that he had raised the question with regard to the appointment of Sir Thomas Esmonde entirely in consequence of communications which, he had received from Ireland, and not because he had any private or personal knowledge of Sir Thomas Esmonde or his opinions. As the appointment, however, had been cancelled, and as, therefore, no public interest could be served by further pursuing the matter, it was not his intention to proceed with his Motion.

LAW OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 23.)
(The Lord Bramwell.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Consent of person charged necessary).
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,in moving, as an Amendment, the omission of the following words, "nor shall such wife or husband be an admissible witness on any such hearing," with the object of making husband or wife an available witness for the prosecution, as well as the defence, said, that as it stood the clause made the husband or wife an available witness for the defence only; but that ought not to be the case, if it was right that everyone who could throw light on the circumstances should be allowed to give evidence. There were some cases in which the evidence of the wife alone could be available against the husband, and was the man to escape for want of legal evidence? To give the prisoner a veto would be to create a greater anomaly than that which it was proposed to abolish. In the case, for instance, of a father committing a gross outrage on his child, which was too young to be examined, the mother might be the only witness, the prisoner would, of course, object to her being called, and a failure of justice would result.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from ("hearing") to ("without") in line 14.—(The Earl of Milltown.)
LORD BRAMWELL: I cannot accept the Amendment. The scope of the Bill is enabling, and not compulsory. It enables certain persons to give evidence, but does not compel them. Another reason why I cannot accept the Amendment is, that it is of the greatest importance that perfect confidence shall exist between husband and wife; and that they shall be able to communicate freely with one another, without the danger of what is said being brought up in evidence against the speaker. If communication with a man's lawyer is privileged, it is still more important that what is said between husband and wife shall be privileged.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that according to the provisions of the Bill it was compulsory on the husband or wife of the prisoner to give evidence, if the prisoner wished it. He (the Earl of Milltown) would enable the husband or wife to be called, whether the prisoner objected or not. No doubt, the home relations might not be so happy as before, but that might happen also when a child of the prisoner gave evidence, which was allowable under the existing law. It was quite as painful and undesirable, if it could be avoided, to convict a prisoner on the evidence of a son or daughter as on that of a wife or husband.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he thought it would be better on every conceivable ground that the law should remain as it was, than that there should be such an invasion of the marriage tie as the Amendment would make.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 severally agreed to.
Clause 5 (Witness need not give evidence as to former offence, &c.)
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,in moving, as an Amendment, the omission of the clause, which provided that no prisoner giving evidence on his own behalf should be cross-examined as to his previous career before the jury had returned their verdict—said that such a
1026
provision would give prisoners an unfair advantage, in having their evidence considered of equal value to that of prosecutors, when, in point of fact, the previous history of such prisoners might be such as to render them totally unworthy of belief. As the practice of the law was now, if a witness was a man of bad character he would be sharply cross-examined as to his previous life; why, then, should a prisoner giving evidence on his own behalf be exempt from cross-examination? He might have been convicted of felony over and over again, and yet, under this clause, counsel for the prosecution would not be allowed to ask a single question as to his past life. If their Lordships admitted the principle that a prisoner might be called as a witness, he thought it would be wise that the prisoner should be subject to the same rules that were applied to all other witnesses.
Moved, "To omit the clause."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he quite approved of the principle of the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, and if he divided the House upon the Amendment, he (Lord Bramwell) should, in all truthfulness, feel bound to support it. That being so, it might be asked why he introduced the clause. He did so to save the time of the House. In the Bill of last year the clause was not inserted, and the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench opposite (Lord Halsbury) moved to insert it. Believing that the noble and learned Lord would take the same course on this occasion, if the clause was omitted, he (Lord Bramwell) had put it in with the view of saving time, although he must say he did not approve of it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he supported the retention of the clause. The whole subject of the Bill was one in which it was necessary to strike a balance between conflicting considerations. On the one hand, it was wrong that an innocent man should be unable to prove his own innocence when all might depend upon his personal testimony; on the other hand, the prisoner ought not to be put morally upon the rack, as seemed to be done in France. He could not see how there could be any objection to the principle that it was better that they should not run the risk

1027
of having innocent men convicted merely because, at some previous time, the accused had been in trouble. It was certainly no impossible thing that a jury might convict a man who ought to be acquitted of the crime with which he was charged, merely on account of his bad character.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a. To-morrow.

CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.—(No. 26.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, read.
Debate resumed accordingly.
THE BISHOP OF LONDON (Dr. TEMPLE)said, the speech of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Grimthorpe) in opposition to this measure was one which it was extremely difficult to answer, and so clever that, although their Lordships did not like to be kept from their dinner, they stayed to listen. For himself, he should have given up his dinner altogether for the mere intellectual treat. He felt, however, under some disadvantage in replying to the speech because of the absence of the noble and learned Lord through indisposition. The noble and learned Lord had complained that the Bill had not been sufficiently discussed. The fact was that a Bill of this kind was never thoroughly discussed in that House, and in its present form, until it came up for second reading. But the subject with which the Bill dealt had been very largely discussed by the people at large, and especially by those who were attached to the Church; it was a subject that had been discussed for years, and a Bill like this was really the fruit of that discussion. It was through the discussion which had taken place that they had come to know what were the feelings of the people generally, and of the mass of the laity of the Church of England, on the question. The objections to the present working of the Church of England were of four kinds—first, to incompetent and
1028
immoral clergymen; second, to the inequality of the incomes of the clergy in respect to the work they had to do; third, to the sale of advowsons; and, fourth, to the fact that under the present system of patronage the inhabitants of a parish had no voice whatever, or any chance of being consulted, in the selection of their clergyman. The Bill did not deal with all these points. With regard to the question of the sale of advowsons and the necessity of allowing the people to have something to say as to the appointment of clergymen to their parishes, the Bill was an attempt to deal fairly and justly, as far as it was possible to do so, with all the interests concerned. With respect to the complaint on the part of the parishioners that the clergyman was forced on them without their having any voice whatever in his appointment, and without their having any opportunity of making any objections to it; he could not for himself understand how anyone could deny that that was a very natural and reasonable feeling on the part of the parishioners. Considering how serious the matters involved were, how they affected the kind of religious teaching which their children were to receive, and the character of the public worship carried on in their parish church, it was impossible not to see that the appointment of their clergyman was a thing that closely concerned the parishioners. It was not very easy for those in the position of their Lordships quite to understand how strong a feeling of that sort there was in the minds of people to whom the character of the clergyman was of far greater importance than it could ever be to any one of them. The way in which the question touched their domestic life and their dealings with their children brought it home to them in a manner which their Lordships would hardly realize. The parishioners felt about it with a keenness which to their Lordships might appear to be absurd; but anyone who had been in the habit of hearing the talk of ordinary laymen would not think he was exaggerating when he said their strong conviction was that their claim to be listened to in that matter was only bare justice. Now, in order to meet that demand, this Bill provided that the parishioners should have the power to make objections; but it did not provide

1029
that the objections so made were in all cases to prevail. The objections were to be made to the Bishop, who was to act upon them, or not, as he thought best. If the Bishop thought the objection was of sufficient importance to be so dealt with, he would place them before a Council, which was to be provided to assist him in the inquiry. That Council was a Council only to inquire and report to the Bishop their opinions on the objections. The Bishop then had to decide what he would do. If he thought, after inquiry, that the objections were well founded, then he could act upon them. But even then there might be an appeal to a higher authority, if the patron desired it. That plan had been suggested as the best mode of securing that the Bishop should not act strictly on his own motion; and provided that they secured that the parishioners should be heard, and that there should be some power of considering their objections, whether it was done by a Council, or by the Bishop, or by referring the matter to three other Bishops, he did not think that the Episcopal Bench would regard it as a very vital point. It was not the wish of the Bishops to decide the question without appeal, or that if there was an appeal it should be to three other Bishops. He felt sure that there would be no objection on that Bench to any reasonable arrangement. What they thought was that the people should feel that they were to have a voice in the appointment of the clergyman, who was to take care of the spiritual interests of themselves and their children. The noble and learned Lord had objected to all that, and had described it in the way that a very skilled advocate would do by supposing that, in every instance, there would be objections made by parishioners who had no real ground for making them; that they would rake up all sorts of gossiping stories and press them on the Bishop; that these stories would be brought before the Council, that the Council would sit in public; that the clergyman would be very thin-skinned and sensitive, and would be absolutely skinned alive in the presence of the parishioners by the questions put to him. The fact, however, was that probably in nine cases out of ten there would be no objections made at all, and in many instances the Bishop, after hearing them, would dismiss them. Al-
1030
though there was a good deal of harm done by the present system, it was not of such a kind that if they made arrangements for dealing with it they were certain to find that the whole country would be immediately thrown into turmoil by all sorts of inquiries into the characters of all sorts of clergymen. Nothing at all like that would happen. Here and there objections might be made to the appointment of a particular clergyman, and those objections would be heard by the Council; and there was no reason at all for supposing that clergymen would be unwilling to meet them. That was the way in which, taken as a whole, the measure would work. Whether the Council would sit in private or public the Bill did not determine, though he ventured to think they would sit in private in certain cases. The highly coloured picture of the misery and torture which the noble and learned Lord the other night drew as probable to occur under the Bill was not at all likely to be realized. The objections to the working of the Church of England in respect of patronage were of two kinds—that of having no voice in the selection of the clergymen, and that relating to the sale of livings—the latter an objection which seemed even stronger in the hearts of the people. Could they get rid of the sale of advowsons with complete and perfect justice to the owners, he confessed he did not think they ought to hesitate about stopping them altogether, and at once. But that was the difficulty, and must always remain the difficulty. The owners of advowsons said—"Why, this has gone on for many years. It has been recognized by the State in every possible way; and, therefore, if it is something wrong, have you not recognized it, and are you not participators in it? You cannot put the whole burden of stopping it on us." The sale of advowsons had been felt to be odious to the public at large for this reason. It seemed as if persons dealt with the nearest and dearest interests without any regard whatever to those interests, and without regard to anything but the money to be got out of them. People thought it a very iniquitous state of things that such matters should be dealt with altogether regardless of the feelings of the parishioners. It was quite clear that there were two very different purposes for which these sales might be

1031
effected. A man might buy a living because he wanted to provide a comfortable berth for some particular clergyman, and it would be quite clear, in that case, he was not regarding the interests of the parishioners; or a man might buy for a very different reason, because the inhabitants were of great interest to him, and because he desired to secure the best provision for the people. They could not put these two proposals on the same footing. The purchase of a living with the view of securing a better clergyman was not the same thing as purchasing a living regardless altogether of the views of the parish, which was regarded as a great insult. And this showed very much the way in which this Bill proposed to deal with the sale of advowsons. The tendency of the Bill was to discourage those sales which shut the interests of the parishioners out of sight. That was why it was proposed not to allow sales by auction, where it was proclaimed before the whole world that they did not care about the parish, but all for money. That was in the nature of the case a very insulting thing. It was a very grievous insult. There was a scandal about it. It was an illustration of the reasons why the parishioners objected to such sales. It was for this and similar reasons that the very existence of the clerical agents was felt to be a blot upon the Church of England, which the great mass of the people could not tolerate. Recurring for a moment to the objection taken by the noble and learned Lord to the power given to parishioners to object to a presentee as over 70, he could conceive that a man of 70 might very rightly be put into a place where he had much less work to do than in his old parish. He did not believe that the Bishop could fail to recognire such a case, or that he would be unwilling to accept a man who had done hard work, and came to do easy work in some light parish. But they knew from experience that it was by no means always wise to translate such men from their old parishes in which they had laboured many years. While they remained where they were there were ties between them and their parishioners of the sweetest kind, and although they did little work their very presence was a great blessing. Put such a man where he knew nobody and he became a failure. They must give a cer-
1032
tain amount of discretion to the Bishop. He did not mean to say that there might not be certain points in the Bill which were worthy of examination in Committee; there might be restrictions which might be differently worded; but he thought, on the whole, unless they meant to maintain to the last that a patron was to treat a living as a property and in no sense as a trust, they could not have fewer restrictions than were to be found in this Bill. As to Scotland, they had few of these sales north of the Tweed. They had not the practice there. In Scotland the people had a strong belief in the right of the congregation to have avoice in the selection of its minister; and as soon as it was known that the parishioners had very little voice they commenced the agitation which led to the dismemberment of the Church, and the sweeping away of all the private patronage, which might have remained still if only private patrons would have consented at first to some modification of their rights. They were certain to have to deal soon soon with the question of Disestablishment—within, should he say, the next 20 years. He expected that it would be within a shorter period even than that; and he considered it was the duty of all who valued the Church to see that the reasonable demands of the people were carefully considered and as far as possible conceded. He believed that the refusal to pass a Bill of this sort, and especially a refusal by that House, where it was supposed that the interests of the Church were specially guarded, would cause very serious risk to the Church hereafter. It would leave it open to be said that those who professed to care about the Church cared still more about their own private interests in the Church, and that they were unwilling to assent to changes or modifications of their rights which had been shown to be reasonable. It was essential to the acceptance of the labours of a clergyman in his parish that he should not be appointed without regard to the wishes of those to whom he was to minister; and the disregard of their feelings was coming to be regarded more and more as an insult. For these reasons he felt that the rejection of the Bill would seriously hurt the Church of England, to whose interests he was deeply attached.
EARL COWPERsaid he spoke with the sense of responsibility which natu-

1033
rally attached to one who had the good fortune, or the misfortune, as some might think, to be the patron of 17 livings. No one could deny that there was need for reform of various kinds in the Church, and in considering what ought to be done they ought to have regard less to the attack of enemies outside than to the remedies for evils which were suggested by the experience of friends within. There was no primâ facie evidence that a man who bought a living was necessarily unfit to hold it. On the contrary, if he or his friends were willing to give money to procure him a benefice, it would appear at first sight that in his own belief or that of his friends he was adopting what he felt to be his vocation. He knew in his own neighbourhood a living occupied by a stranger for whom it was bought by a relative, and he made a most admirable parish priest. There was nothing iniquitous in paying a worn-out man to retire. It was one of the gravest scandals to the Church that men without energy should moulder in country parishes, when paralyzed either by age or by the monotony of their lives. The supersession of such men by younger and energetic men was a benefit to the Church. Perhaps there were shocking cases of sale by auction; and this was very wrong. But so far the supporters of this Bill had refrained from mentioning any of these scandals, perhaps from anxiety to avoid sensational speeches. Those who sold livings by auction must be men altogether devoid of all sense of responsibility. It was improbable they would make better appointments if they gave livings away, for if they were disreputable men they would be very likely to appoint their boon companions. As long as private patronage existed these risks must attend it. He was not sure that so great a grievance was connected with what were called family livings, some of which were held by most admirable clergymen. Still it had been said that these livings were reserved for the fool of the family who could not make his living in any other calling. The fact was, no system of patronage was altogether unattended by evil. The way to get at the evil was to take care that unfit men were not appointed, either by private presentation or in any other manner. The only way he could see was that of strengthening the hands of the Bishops, in the appointment of whom all
1034
Prime Ministers have felt a strong sense of responsibility. This was true not only of the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, and of Mr. Gladstone, but even of Lord Melbourne, of whom it was said he could hardly sleep at night when he had to appoint a Bishop. And there was not a Bishop on the Bench whose character and position would not secure public acquiescence in the increase in his powers. He did not like the idea of appointing a jury of Bishops. The matter had better be left to each Bishop in his own diocese. Party feeling in the Church was much exaggerated; and Christians of all denominations were beginning to make common cause against a common enemy. He did not think that Party spirit was so bitter as it was in the days of our forefathers. His own idea was that instead sometimes of being too anxious to interfere with and stop bad appointments, the Bishops were a little too humble and diffident of their powers. He hoped that if power were given and they were entitled to exercise it, something would be done to stop the appointment of unfit men. He also wished that more power existed of getting rid of incompetent men. That was a difficult matter, no doubt. It was an invidious duty to ask a man to retire and to surrender a portion of his income. He observed that the Bill gave the Bishop power to remove a clergyman who was lunatic for two years; but he thought that no hardship would be entailed in compelling every clergyman who had been unable from any cause to attend to his duties for two whole years to retire on one-third of his income. A provision of this kind he thought would be unobjectionable. Whether their Lordships could go any further than this he did not know. The matter was one which required very careful consideration. The subject of the lay element proposed to be introduced by this Bill was a very wide one; but in the opinion of many persons it was considered desirable to associate laymen in Church work. He was not quite sure, however, that to appoint a merely consultative council of this kind with no power and liable to be over-ruled by the Bishop,—the Bishop, indeed, being able to take action without them—was a good beginning for the introduction of this lay element. He was not at all sure that they

1035
would succeed in getting the men they wanted—men of business habits, clear heads, and active dispositions. Such men, as a rule, were pretty well occupied. They might be induced to come forward by a sense of duty if they were to have any real power; but it was a question whether, if they were merely to be a consultative body, they would come forward. In this case they would only be able to obtain the services of second-rate men. No one was more impressed than he was with the necessity of consulting the wishes of the parishioners; but he thought this would be best done through the Bishops who should have more power of objecting to the appointment of unfit men. He believed the right rev. Prelates were anxious to pass this measure, and he was willing to pay great deference to their opinions in this matter. Some persons were of opinion that it was the kind of Bill to read a second time and refer to a Select Committee. But as the Bill had already been before a Select Committee it was doubtful whether it should again be referred to such a body. He did not know whether the Bill was presented to their Lordships, either to take it as it stood, or to have nothing to do with it; if that were the case he felt very much inclined to have nothing to do with it.
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH (Dr. Magee)said the discussion that evening had recalled to his recollection the time when, 13 years ago, a Bill almost similar in its terms was passed through their Lordships' House, and he then advocated reforms in the Church of England. On this occasion, however, he addressed their Lordships with a feeling of extreme anxiety, because what they were asked to do by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Grimthorpe) was to refuse now and at once the second reading of this Bill. This measure had occupied the thoughts and the minds—and he did not think it was even unbecoming to say in that place, the prayers of those who had desired the reform of the Church of England for years in this matter. The main provisions of the Bill had the consent of the Primates, all the Bishops, and all the representative assemblies of the Church. The noble Earl who had just sat down (Earl Cowper) said they had to choose between this Bill as it stood or rejecting it altogether. He and his right rev. Friends were anxious
1036
to hear objections and criticisms and to withdraw clauses which were undesirable; but they, at the same time, felt deeply, painfully, how serious would be the injury to the Church, how great the encouragement given to the Church's enemies if, in that House—which might be called a House of Patrons—an admittedly needful reform in Church Patronage was met by, he would not say contemptuous, but a curt and brief rejection of the measure which sought to accomplish it without even an attempt to discuss its clauses, for some noble Lords were not willing even to discuss the clauses of the Bill; they thought it so mischievous and rash that they were willing to reject it altogether. The noble and learned Lord who addressed their Lordships on Monday evening, seemed to put forward this idea of the Bill—that it was a rash, crude revolutionary measure suddenly evolved out of the consciousness of the Bishops, and that no such revolutionary measure had been known since the days of the Long Parliament. He asked permission to be allowed to state the true history and genesis of the Bill and to test this assertion of his noble and learned Friend by a few facts. This was a Bill founded very largely upon the lines of a measure which he had introduced to the notice of their Lordships many years ago, and for which he obtained their Assent. More than one clause in this had been taken from that Bill. In regard to the charge of its rash and revolutionary character, the proper test on the second reading of a measure was the principle as distinguished from the details. He would therefore take one enactment on which a great deal of the noble Lord's displeasure and criticism was expended. In 1874 he (Dr. Magee) himself moved for a Select Committee to consider Church Patronage. That Committee was composed of, among others, the Archbishop of York, the late Duke of Marlborough, the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Selborne, Lord Overstone, Lord Stanhope, the Marquess of Lansdowne, and Earl Nelson. There were only five Bishops on that Committee out of 19 Members; and a less rash, less revolutionary, more cautious, and thoroughly independent Committee was probably never got together. What was the principle of dealing with the Church patronage

1037
unanimously accepted by this most in fluental and most able Committee? The noble and learned Lord made very merry over the idea of being defined as a trust patronage. He said there was no such thing as a trust in patronage; and he seemed to have no idea of anything but a cestui que trust. What was the principle that was laid down by that Committee? The noble Lord had laughed at the idea of there being a trust in favour of the parishioners. But when the Committee were asked what were the principles upon which the subject of Church patronage should be based, they replied that they were of opinion that any legislation affecting Church patronage should proceed upon the principle that its exercise partook of the nature of a trust and that all existing rights must be dealt with in connection with that principle. The noble and learned Lord appeared to prefer the words "limited rights" to the word "trust;" but whether the former or the latter term were used they both meant to convey that the exercise of Church patronage was the discharge of a public duty, inasmuch as the man who was to be selected for a living was to be the holder of a public office. It was a most miserable view of the question to say that when a man bought a living under the existing system it was just the same as if he had bought a doctor's practice. When a man bought a living he undertook to discharge certain distinct and very important public duties. It could scarcely be said even in the present very depressed state of the Exchequer that it would be a good thing to allow a power of appointment of a Judge to be sold; and it would not be very creditable if the person appointed was a barrister who had only the year before just managed to scrape through his examination. It was not desirable for the public policy or for the public interests that the right of appointment to livings in the Church should, be sold. In his opinion the principle that ought to be laid down was that the right of patronage was to be exercised with a regard to the spiritual wants of the parish, and that a patron should be restrained by law from appointing an unfit person to a living. The noble and learned Lord had very severely criticized the action of some Bishops for having appointed their sons or sons-in-law to livings within their gift.
1038
But, in the first place, this Bill was not aimed against nepotism on the part of private patrons; in the next place, it must be remembered that Bishops lived under a brighter light of public criticism than most men, and that any shortcomings in this respect upon their part were at once marked down. In his view, the principle of restrictions and limitations on Church patronage should be carried out equally in all cases, and should apply as much to the patronage exercised by Bishops as to that exercised by private individuals; and if there was any inequality in their favour in the restrictions and limitations of this Bill, the Bishops would be most willing and most desirous that it should be removed. He (Dr. Magee) trusted, therefore, that it would not be supposed that this Bill was intended by the Bishops to be an attack upon private patronage. He would now consider the point involving the rights of the parishioners to object to the appointment of any particular person to a living in their parish. The Committee had expressed their opinion that there should be some check exercised by the parishioners to prevent the appointment of unfit persons, and that they should have the right not to veto, but to object to the appointment of a man known to be grossly and shamelessly immoral. He himself had some doubt whether debt should not also be a ground for exclusion. The noble and learned Lord had drawn a picture of the scum of the parishes gathering together at the Blue Boar to discuss the character of their parson. The noble and learned Lord probably knew very little about the scum of our parishes. Those who laboured in our parishes could assure him that when the scum went to the Blue Boar it was for other purposes than to discuss the character of their parsons. It was earnest, pious, moral Churchmen who were grieved, shocked, and sick at heart, when men were thrust upon them of more than doubtful character, and their hands were paralyzed when they were called upon to defend the Church at fair or market. His only fear respecting this clause was that it would be practically inoperative. It was the most difficult thing in life when a Bishop received private information about the misconduct of a clergyman to get the person who sent the information to come forward publicly. He almost

1039
always said, "Oh, leave me out, do not mention my name; you must not rely upon me." In a short time afterwards perhaps they heard it said, "The clergyman of so-and-so is leading a scandalous life. The Bishop has all the facts, and he will take no steps." Now, what he (Dr. Magee) wanted was to place the responsibility on the person who ought to bear it. He believed that nothing would tend more to satisfy the public sentiment than to give the parishioners some power of stating their objections, strictly limited to facts, and made before a properly constituted tribunal. It was hardly fair, hardly reasonable, to put the whole burden on the Bishop's shoulders. "Why should Bishops be mulcted in sums varying from £1,500 to £2,000 or £3,000 in instituting and carrying on proceedings in the case of unfit presentees? Before concluding, he would say a word as to the history of the case. When, as he was glad to say, the Bill passed into the hands of the most rev. Prelate who brought it before their Lordships, the same clause which gave the parishioners power of objecting was contained in it, and it passed through Committee in their Lordships' House. The Bill had been laid before both Convocations and the House of Laymen. It was very freely canvassed and amended, and it now came before their Lordships as the Bill approved by the House of Laymen. It met with the all but unanimous assent of the Church representatives and of Lay Church opinion, and their Lordships were now only asked, to consent to give it a second reading. He most earnestly entreated them, whatever they might think of details—and the Bill was, he admitted, very much a Bill of details—not to inflict upon the Bishops and the Church the pain and disappointment of a total rejection of the Bill. Let them do what they thought right in Committee, but he entreated them to pass the second reading. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Grimthorpe) had made a strong appeal to the fears of the Members of their Lordships' House. That was not the kind of argument he himself would like to address to the Peers of England. If he believed that this Bill would seriously injure private patronage, instead of believing, as he did, that it was the only measure which could preserve it, he would nevertheless say to powerful and wealthy
1040
patrons, "Show your attachment to the Church and make some sacrifice, not only of money, but of family influence in the interest of the Church and of the country." But this Bill inflicts no such injury. Believe us when we tell you that those who seek a reform of patronage, a wise and kindly reform, are not the enemies of private patronage. They were the enemies of private patronage who scornfully rejected every proposal of reform.
"Hoc Ithacus velit, hoc magno mercentur Atridœ."
The hearts of the enemies of the Church would leap with delight if they heard that the Bishops could not induce the House of Lords to pass the second reading of a measure to reform admitted and notorious abuses in the Church of England. Rather than appeal to their Lordships' fears, he would appeal to their sense of justice—their impartial sense of justice—and to their attachment to the Church of England. Some of the details of the Bill might be distasteful to their Lordships. The Bishops were not strong enough to prevent them from Amending it. In a House of 500 Peers the Bishops were 25—and not 85—and there was but one Irishman amongst them. The Bishops were willing and anxious that their Lordships should deal as they thought right with any provisions of the Bill, but they entreated their Lordships, for the sake of the Church of England, to give the Bill a Second Reading.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he did not think that the responsibility of recommending the second reading of the Bill ought to be left entirely to the Episcopal Bench; he would therefore give some reasons why he thought their Lordships should not reject the second reading. He agreed with the noble Earl behind him (Earl Cowper) when he said that their Lordships ought not to pass the Bill with the view of conciliating people who would not be conciliated. Their Lordships ought to do what they thought right. But he disagreed with another part of the noble Earl's speech in which he said it seemed to him that their Lordships had nothing to do but to take the Bill as it was, or else to have nothing to do with it. He did not think that their Lordships should take a Bill of that importance in that spirit—they should exercise their own judg-

1041
ment on its details. If they objected to the principle, let them reject the Bill on the second reading, but let them not do so under the idea that they must take the whole Bill as it was or reject it. The Bill was of a preventive character, and he fully believed that if its more important provisions became law it would very effectively tend to prevent the evils now complained of. It would consequently be more useful in its indirect than its direct operation; and he thought that so strong would its effect be in this way that few objections would be necessary or would be taken under it by parishioners. This was very desirable, because it was much more difficult to deal with the case of an unfit clergyman after he had entered on a particular sphere of duty than before. The difficulty of proceeding against a criminous clergyman was admitted on all hands; but that difficulty would be obviated if a charge against him were brought forward by the persons most interested, the parishioners, at the time when the clergyman's name was submitted for presentation, and if notoriously bad reputation, as well as proved criminality, were admitted as a ground of objection. The Bill did not give a power of veto to the inhabitants of a parish; but it would afford them full opportunity of submitting to the Bishop of the diocese objections—not all sorts of objections, but objections upon specific grounds defined by the Bill—which they might have to a particular clergyman before his appointment was made. Parishioners would not asperse the characters of innocent men, under such circumstances, by spreading evil reports; but, if there were evil reports, the Bishop should certainly know of them. He could not approve the view that there was no reason whatever why livings should not be bought and sold. He had always thought, however, that there was a broad distinction between the sale of advowsons and of presentations. The sale of an advowson, apart from any particular or proximate appointment to the office, did not seem to offend against any principle; but the sale of presentations was open to all the objections which could be offered to the sale of any public office or any private trust. On the same principle a man might buy a seat in Parliament, or an elector might sell his vote; but the law prohibited
1042
this, because the office and the vote were important public trusts, with great public duties attached to them; and the man who entered upon the office, or exercised the vote, should do so not for money, but by open, regular, Constitutional methods. He could see no difference in principle between buying directly and buying indirectly—between buying a vacant living and one about to become vacant: the same thing was bought in each case, namely, the office of a parish clergyman, with cure of souls; the only difference being that between a sale in possession and a sale in reversion, even when there was no bargain or secret understanding for an early vacancy. Whether a man bought for himself, or for another, the buying, as it seemed to him, equally contravened the principle that should govern selections for offices of public importance. All the principles which prevented trafficking in other offices applied strongly to the case of the clergyman. There were two sorts of sales of advowsons—one to persons who wanted to keep them; the other to people who only wanted the next presentation. The object of the Bill was to cut off that indirect mode of selling next presentations, and to interfere with sales to purchasers whose object was not to sell again after a presentation had been made, so far only as might be necessary to accomplish that object. If their Lordships would accept the main principles of the Bill, all its details might, and ought to be, open to discussion in Committee, upon their merits.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AEFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I agree with the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Selborne) who has just sat down that the House will do well to read the Bill a second time; but I say so with a full sense of all the criticism passed upon the Bill and with the feeling that the Bill will require very careful attention in Committee; and I hope it will receive that attention from your Lordships, and that it will undergo great alteration. The idea was thrown out by one speaker that it should be referred again to a Select Committee. I think all that Select Committees can do for this Bill has been done, and it has emerged from them so altered, that I can hardly hope any additional advantage can be gained. We

1043
must, therefore, attend to it in a Committee of the Whole House, and I have no doubt a useful measure can eventually be made out of it, though not, perhaps, without very freely amending it. The Bill consists of two parts essentially—I do not speak of those small, scattered provisions in detail towards the end of it—the part affecting the sale of advowsons or of presentations, and the other part affecting presentation itself. With respect to the sale of presentations, I have come to practically the same conclusion as my noble and learned Friend who has just sat down, though not perhaps exactly from the same premisses. I cannot help being struck—as the noble Earl was struck—with the practical fact that a great number of the best clergymen are people whose relatives bought them livings in the Church. It is a mode of entry into the functions of the Church which, I admit, according to strict logical principles, it might be hard to defend. But considering that the other modes consist entirely in the exercise of patronage of one sort or another—that is to say, that those who do not buy livings must obtain them by asking for them—I cannot but look with regret upon the necessity for putting an end to that mode of obtaining livings which has largely prevailed, and, in the experience of most of us, to the advantage of the Church. But, unfortunately, there is also this disadvantage, that unquestionably there is an amount of abuse connected with the sale of livings—with the agencies and with the auctions—an amount of abuse so real in its character and at the same time so crying and flagrant, and attracting so much public attention, and wounding so deeply public morality and sentiment, arousing so much discontent in the Church and a deep sense of wrong on the part of parishioners themselves; that I do not think it is consistent with the safety of the Church of England to allow things to go on as they are. I heard the other day of an instance of a kind of tenure of advowsons and the kind of agency which exists which gave me a very vivid idea of the feelings with which parishioners must regard the exercise of the existing right. It was in the West of England. There was a bank which had, I think, obtained an estate, with an advowson attached, for a bad debt. The estate was sold, and the advowson remained with the bank, and as
1044
regularly as possible—it was a bank in Dublin—just before the living fell vacant, the next presentation was sold by the bank in Dublin, with the knowledge of the parishioners themselves, who knew perfectly well the operation that was going on in the sale of their spiritual interests. There is a feeling among many to whom their spiritual interests are most dear, that, dealing with spiritual affairs in this cold-blooded, commercial spirit, would be enough to drive great numbers from the Church, and to leave a bitter sense of wrong and resentment in those who remain. I think it is a question of feeling more than of logic, but feeling in all countries, and in this country especially, must be regarded as a fact; and where a strong feeling of this kind exists—in reference to an institution depending so largely for its usefulness upon the amount of sympathy it can excite—it is a duty to pay regard to this feeling, and to act as nearly as possible in sympathy with the people. On this ground I do not take practical objection to the part of the Bill which deals with the sale of next presentations and of advowsons; although there are questions of detail into which I will not go. But I am not so satisfied with that part of the Bill which deals with presentations themselves. I confess that the more I look at that elective Council the less I like it. It is a very clumsy device; it will be exceedingly difficult to elect; it will be an enormous amount of machinery for doing very little; and you will never get the people to attend it. It is most dangerous to introduce the elective principle into presentations. But, besides these objections, there are two which are much more serious. One of the main duties of this Council will be to hear grounds for refusing presentation to a man who has been nominated; and among the grounds that will be given will be such things as mental incapacity, debt, and some moral stain. You may call the inquiry what you like, but it will be putting that man on his trial; it will be well known he is on his trial, that his character in these respects is being canvassed by this body, and the decision at which they arrive will cling to him through life. If his moral character be stamped as bad, if his mental qualities are declared to be inefficient, even if it is stated that he is heavily burdened with

1045
debt; by the verdict of this Council, not only will he lose that presentation, but he will have little chance of any other, and any hope of promotion, or preferment, or distinction in the profession will be closed to him for ever. It is, therefore, a very grave duty—the duty of trying a man—that this Council will have to discharge. And who are they? They are men elected by the ratepayers. In what other of your institutions do you have elected Judges to try men? We have had to change many things and alter many things in accordance with theories of an advanced character; but we have hitherto contrived to maintain the nominated character of our Judges. We have kept our elective principle at bay in respect of the Judges, and I earnestly trust we shall continue to do so. The elective principle has succeeded well in other matters; but I believe that, applied to Judges, it has terribly failed; and it has certainly been always earnestly repudiated, both by traditions and by the sound sense of the people of this country. I should be very sorry to select the machinery of the Church for the first occasion of introducing a principle so dangerous; and I think it would be hard that you should apply it, not to the cases of men who are culprits, not in the case of men accused of any crime, but in the case of men who were merely put upon their trial because they had aspired to be permitted to serve their God and their country as spiritual pastors of congregations. I feel that this is a deep objection to this principle of elective Councils. But I have another objection. The Bill takes away from Bishops their proper functions. Bishops can. refuse institution if a man is unfit to hold the living to which he is presented. If the law does not give them sufficient support in that, alter the law. I speak for myself; I do not speak for anybody else. As a patron I should not be in the least afraid of entrusting a Bishop with the power of rejecting all candidates for institution, on the grounds stated in this Bill, with an appeal, of course, to the Archbishop. I believe they might be safely entrusted with that power. Whether you agree with that view or not, whether you care to provide other securities or guards, at all events let the principle of episcopal responsibility remain intact
1046
The right rev. Prelate who spoke with so much eloquence admitted that the use of the elective Council was principally for the purpose of screening the responsibility of the Bishops. They can only gain by assuming their proper duty, and I cannot conceive why they should shrink from doing it. That they should shrink from expense I entirely understand. I earnestly hope that something in that direction will be done. I cannot understand why they should not step forward and assume their proper responsibility in this matter. Their power is sufficient. They have the right, if any men have, to exercise their office upon their own responsibility in behalf of the only authority to whom they are really responsible; and considering how they are protected by the law—how little of any public criticism can reach them—I never could understand why so much effort should be made to cover them by special securities, or to spare them from the duty of exercising their powers on their own responsibility. Of course I do not wish to press unduly the idea of giving to them this exclusive power if it should not meet with the views of others; but I do earnestly hope that the duty will not be removed, from them, and that their responsibility will not be effaced by furnishing them with an elective Council which will either be a nonentity or, if it acts at all, will entirely supersede their power and take it out of their hands. It is all very well to say that the Council will only advise just as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council only advised; but in due course of time that advice will become peremptory, and if the spirit of the Bishops is not equal to asserting their own responsibility now when they have nothing but public opinion to deal with, what chance is there of their asserting it against an organized elective Council? I fear the effacement of the episcopal office will be the necessary result of this introduction of the elective principle. There is only one other remark which I wish to make before I sit down. This anxiety about first appointments to the Church is open to the criticism that it does not touch the real danger and remove the principal evil. Undoubtedly we do suffer, not I believe to any great extent, not so much as we did in past times; or as they suffer in many other religious bodies. Still we do know that there is a certain

1047
number of clergymen who are wholly unfitted for the duties which they have to perform, but whom we have no power to remove, and who, if we leave them in their positions, must go on disgracing their pastoral office and misusing the powers given them. This Bill does not touch that evil. Lord Palmerston once said that all children were born good. I will not run the risk of imitating his observation; but to a certain extent it is true of clergymen, that when they are first appointed they are good. When they first begin very little is known of the seeds of evil within them. The tendency to get into debt, the laziness, sometimes even drunkenness, which mark, not, mind you, a large number, but, I may say, a very small number proportionately of the clergy, have not been, I think, if your Lordships will consult your own experience and local knowledge, distinguishable when these men first came into their livings. They are developed later under the temptation of independence, and under the wear of that monotony of life of which the noble Lord spoke; and it is that evil which, developing later, forms the blot and danger of the Church. You will not remove that evil by the care you are taking with regard to first appointments. The real evil lies much deeper, and it will tax all your legislative skill much more severely, and it is a much more arduous task to undertake; but until we have provided some means by which the rulers of the Church can get rid of clergymen who are, either from moral or physical reasons, no longer fitted to minister to their flocks, we have not dealt with the greatest evil which afflicts the Church.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he agreed with what the noble and learned Earl and the noble Marquess had said, so he need hardly detain their Lordships at all. There were excellent provisions in the Bill—(1) the suppression of the sale of livings by auction; (2) the appeal to the Archbishop, which he was glad to find conceded here by the right rev. Bench, though they had, unfortunately, succeeded in resisting it; (3) the notice to the parishioners of the intended appointment; (4) the protection of the Bishops in the discharge of their duty, by sending communications on the subject to them as to the patron—privileged communications. The right rev. Prelate
1048
who spoke first talked of giving the parishioners a voice in the appointment of their clergymen; he hoped the Bill would continue confined, as it was now, to certain specified objections which alone they were entitled to make. The Bishop also dwelt on the intense interest that was felt by parishioners in the appointmeut of the man upon whose efficient discharge of whose sacred duties and way of performing the services so much of the comfort and well-being of the parish depended. He (Earl Fortescue) doubted whether, except on the occasion of some political excitement, so much interest was felt in the generality of parishes. He had been a patron of livings now more than a quarter of a century; and in the course of that time—he would specify neither place nor date—he had received a numerously-signed memorial from the church warden and many other parishioners, praying him to present to the living a clergyman who for three or four months had done duty there during the incumbent's last illness. He (Earl Fortescue) had ascertained that the memorialists had signed without having taken the trouble to inquire into the character of the clergyman, who came from the next county. He turned out, as it happened, to be respectable, and had certificates from two respectable clergymen. But, as he wrote the memorialists this, no thanks to them for all they knew; he might have been utterly disreputable and deeply in debt, though not having incurred any public censure. He did not present him, having selected another clergyman. But what a lesson did this afford of the carelessness of parishioners in recommending clergymen. Again, one of the recollections of his youth was hearing of a contest for a living, while the parishioners at large were the patrons; and of the scenes of drunkenness witnessed there for days—the two candidates having opened every public-house and beershop. Then, as to Crown—that is, Ministerial—patronage; that was decidedly the worst. Ministers charged with the affairs of the British Empire could not, and ought not, to afford much time and labour upon the selection of clergymen for livings. Nor had the patronage of the Bishops been always well exercised. The Edinburgh Review, years ago, gave an account, unfair and exaggerated indeed, but in the main well-founded, of the nepotism and

1049
religious and political partizanship of Bishop Phillpotts in the bestowal of his patronage. The Chapters and Colleges generally exercised them less well than the Bishops did. On the whole, he believed it was acknowledged that the private patrons, with some exceptions, exercised their patronage best of all. And, remembering how little chance any earnest clergyman of what would now be called either Ritualistic or Evangelical opinions a century ago would have had of getting a living, or keeping a curacy, over the Bishops had absolute power, if it had not been for private patronage—he was jealous of the diminution of private patronage in the Church, as that kind of patronage secured some variety and some fairness of dealing towards men of different schools of thought. It was of great importance to the Church of England that there should be a certain amount of independent patronage clear of the prevailing pattern—or rather tone—of religious feeling; and he more than doubted the wisdom of the tendency of this Bill to increase the amount of patronage in the hands of what were called public patrons, and to diminish that in the hands of private patrons.
On Question, "That ("now") stand part of the Motion?"
Resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 15th instant.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.