Sitting of 16 May 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Forest School,appointed.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES; CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES; £3,830,300, on Account—CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS; CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS; CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE; CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART; CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES; CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE CHARITARLE SERVICES; CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—National Debt and Local Loans * [266].
First Reading—Railway and Canal Traffic *[265].
Second Sending—Trusts (Scotland) Act (1867) Amendment [225]; East India Stock Conversion * [263]; Parish Allotments Committees [170], debate adjourned; Open Spaces (Dublin) [80].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Third Reading—Pier and Harbour * [222], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—QUARTER SESSIONS AND ASSIZES.
  MR. SHIRLEYasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he will take steps to prevent ordinary Quarter Sessions cases from being tried at the Assizes; and, if he will explain on what principle or system counsel are selected to conduct Treasury

  51
  prosecutions at Quarter Sessions and Assizes?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER), in reply, said, he had no power to prevent ordinary Sessions cases being taken at Assizes. The Government intended to introduce a Bill on the subject; but the present state of Public Business made it extremely improbable that they would be able to do so at an early date. The selection of counsel to conduct Treasury prosecutions rested with the Attorney General.

  BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—ANNADOWN NATIONAL SCHOOL, CO. DOWN.
  MR. KERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Board of National Education (Ireland) has refused to approve of the appointment of a monitor for the Annadown National School, County Down, which has an average attendance for the last year far in excess of that required by the Rules of the Board, and that the master has generally between 40 and 60 pupils to attend to without any assistance?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the Board of National Education stated they were obliged to refuse their sanction to this appointment, amongst others, owing to the temporary excess of pupils. The 1st of July in each year was the day fixed for sanctioning new appointments of monitors. Any representation then made by Inspectors would be fully considered by the Commissioners.

  BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—AUGHIOGAN NATIONAL SCHOOL, CO. TYRONE—THE "WORK-MISTRESS."
  MR. M. J. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the grounds upon which the Board of National Education made an Order, dated 1st February, 1887, altering the status of the workmistress of the Aughiogan National School, County Tyrone, by making her position that of "temporary workmistress;" and, whether
  52
  the average attendance, which regulates the status of such teachers, warranted the alteration referred to?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, it appeared that the manager of this school appointed a female temporary assistant, and afterwards appointed a workmistress. The Board of National Education could not, therefore, under their rules, pay the salary of a workmistress and a female temporary assistant at the same time; but to meet the case they decided to grant a salary to a temporary female assistant if the average attendance was 170 children, and a salary of workmistress if the average attendance reached 200 children.

  BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—MILLTOWN NATIONAL SCHOOL, CO. TYRONE.
  MR. M. J. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is usual to compel workmistresses, who have been already recognized as such by the Board of National Education, to submit to re-examination in certain branches of the subject which they teach, and upon what grounds the Commissioners of Education have ordered a further examination of Miss Daly, of the Milltown National School, County Tyrone, in view of the fact that her appointment has been already ratified by the Education Board?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, it was not usual, except in special cases, to compel workmistresses to be re-examined. In the case referred to, the Commissioners of National Education reported that Miss Daly was merely examined in one branch in which she had not previously obtained a place in her examination.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND)—LINE BETWEEN SCHULL AND SKIBBEREEN.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that the line of tramway between Schull and Skibbereen has become a complete failure, owing to the manner in which it has been constructed; and,

  53
  whether, considering the fact that a Government Engineer has certified that the line has been properly made, the Treasury will come to the relief of the ratepayers, who are liable for the money advanced for the promotion of the scheme?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)(who replied) said: An Inspecting Officer of the Board of Trade reported that the Schull and Skibbereen Tramway and Light Railway was fit for public traffic; and in September last a certificate to this effect was issued, the speed of trains being limited to a low rate over certain parts of the line. It is now understood that the traffic has been stopped, owing to the failure of the engines employed. But, in consequence of representations made by 20 ratepayers of the district to the Board of Trade, orders have been given that an inquiry shall be hold, at an early date, under the provisions of the 45th section of the Order in Council, which authorized the construction of the tramway.

  ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—MONAGHAN DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Her Majesty's Inspectors of Asylums for the Poor in Ireland, in their Annual Report, dated March 9, 1886, of the Monaghan District Lunatic Asylum, state—
  "The ceilings in many parts of the establishment require repair, and some of the corridors on the ground would be improved if boarded, as the female patients undress in them previous to going to bed. This the resident physician will have attended to by bringing the subject before the Board at their next meeting.
  "With reference to water closets and means of personal ablution, much improvement is requisite which, I think, will be fully carried out before the existing building contract will have terminated;"
  whether the dividing walls between the several departments are not carried up to the roof, as is required in all public institutions in England, as a check on the spread of fire; whether diphtheria has recently broken out in the asylum; whether the resident medical officer and Visiting Committee have frequently urged the Board to carry out the Inspector's recommendations; whether it
  54
  is a fact that these alterations have net yet been made; and, will he take steps to compel the Board of Governors to carry out the Inspector's recommendations without further delay?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Arrangements are being made to have the necessary improvements carried out at the Monaghan District Lunatic Asylum. Diphtheria has not, it appears, recently broken out; and one of the Inspectors who visited the asylum towards the end of last March found the sanitary condition of the patients so satisfactory that only four out of the entire number of 485 were confined to bed.

  ROADS AND BRIDGES (IRELAND)—DERRY BRIDGE COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Act under which the Derry Bridge Commissioners are appointed gives them the exclusive right of ferry-age across the River Foyle, at Derry?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, that this Question related to the interpretation of an Act of Parliament; and, therefore, the hon. Member would see that the Irish Government could hardly give an answer to it.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—MONAGHAN UNION—NOTICE TO GUARDIANS.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Miss Gertrude Rose, Mr. Dacre Hamilton, and Colonel Forster, landlords within the Monaghan Union, have notified the Guardians of their intention of evicting 65 families, their tenants, forthwith; whether it is true that two large wings of the workhouse at Monaghan are at present occupied by the Monaghan Militia, assembled for their annual training; whether, in can-sequence, the Guardians will be unable to provide accommodation for these tenants if evicted; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Government will refuse to give any assistance in carrying out these evictions until the Militia are

  55
  disbanded, and the Guardians are thus enabled to provide shelter for them?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: It appears that the landlords named have served the relieving officer with notices of eviction in the case of 61 families. The two wings of the workhouse are at present occupied by the Monaghan Militia, but will be vacated by them on the 28th instant. The Guardians of the Union report that there is ample accommodation for these tenants in the workhouse, independent of the portions temporarily occupied by the Militia, should there be a great influx of paupers through the carrying out of the evictions. The Guardians, however, do not seem to anticipate that such an influx will result from the evictions;

  LABOURERS' ACTS (IRELAND)—THE RETURN.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Return showing the working of the Labourers' Acts (Ireland), ordered on 5th April, 1887, will be laid upon the Table?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The information required for this Return is being obtained from the Clerks of Unions. Some of the clerks have not yet supplied, it, and the statement of several have been returned for explanation. It is not possible to say at present when the Return will be ready to lay upon the Table; but no time shall be lost in preparing it.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN—HOLIDAY IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he will consider the propriety of permitting that when the 50th anniversary of the Accession to the Crown of Her Gracious Majesty shall be celebrated in any elementary schools by a whole holiday, the scholars shall, in the interest of the teachers and of themselves, have credit for two attendances, in the same way as two attend-
  56
  ances are credited to scholars when an elementary school is used for election purposes?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The two attendances to which my hon. Friend refers are credited to scholars by a special provision of the Code to meet the case of a compulsory closing of a school under the Ballot Act; but, glad as I should be to meet the wishes of those who desire to celebrate the Jubilee in the way suggested, I am advised that the Department have no power in the matter, and that the holiday must be given under the usual conditions.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—JOSEPH WATT, RELIEVING OFFICER OF THE BELFAST UNION.
  MR. LEAHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that owing to the reported drunkenness and neglect of duty of Joseph Watt, one of the relieving officers of the Belfast Union, at a meeting held on the 3rd May, 1887, the Guardians decided and directed that Watt's conduct for the ensuing week should be closely watched to see if any improvement would set in, and that as the result Watt was drunk, to the knowledge of several officers of the Union and others, and did not attend to the Barrack Street Dispensary for several days; is he aware that Watt's conduct was brought home to the knowledge of a large Board of the Guardians on the 10th May, 1887, and that his services are still retained without admonition or reproof; and, what action does the Local Government Board intend to take in the matter?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, he had already stated twice, he thought, in reply to Questions on this subject, that this relieving officer was obliged to retire from the meeting of the Board on the 3rd instant owing to illness. The Guardians on the day in question did not give any instructions that Watt should be watched to ascertain whether he was intoxicated. His non-attendance, reported due to illness, was confirmed by a medical certificate, which was laid before the Guardians at their meeting on the 10th instant. The

  57
  Local Government Board did not see any ground at the present moment for action on their part.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—ASSAULT ON WARDER M'CONNELL IN MOUNTJOY PRISON.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the facts connected with the assault committed on warder M'Connell in Mountjoy Prison on the 9th instant by two convicts; whether it is the fact, as stated in the public Press, that the warder's life was saved by the intervention of another convict named Tansey, who interfered to protect him; and, whether it is proposed to recognize Tansey's action in the matter by the remission of his sentence, or otherwise?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The assault committed upon three warders on the occasion referred to forms the subject of an inquiry on oath, which has been adjourned, owing to the life of one of the warders being not yet out of danger. Pending the result of this inquiry, the Irish Government are unable to make any further statement in the matter.

  THE TRUCK ACTS—VIOLATION OF THEIR PROVISIONS.
  MR. BARBOURasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been called to The Paisley Daily Express of the 4th and 6th instant, in which are alleged what appear to be breaches of the Truck Acts, by the contractors for the improvement of the River Cart; if he has taken steps to ascertain the truth, or otherwise, of those statements; and, if true, what steps are being taken for the enforcement of the law?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON)(who replied) said, the Lord Advocate's attention had been called to the matter, and an inquiry had been made. There was no doubt that proceedings such as those to which the Question referred constituted a distinct breach of the Truck Acts if done by an employer to whose business the Act applied; but the work in question did not fall within
  58
  the present limited scope of the Acts, and it was, therefore, impossible to interfere.

  POST OFFICE—PRIVATE AND OFFICIAL POST-CARDS.
  MR. RANKINasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to an issue of white post cards supplied by Fullford, Printers, at King's Cros3, for 6½d. per dozen; and, whether, if such a price is remunerative, he will consider the question of reducing the prices of the post cards supplied by the Post Office, which are respectively 7d. and 8d. per dozen for the yellow and white post cards?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL(Mr. RAIKES): The cards to which the hon. Member refers are not those issued by the Post Office, but are private post-cards, allowed, under certain conditions, to be stamped at Somerset House. I cannot say precisely how it is that the stationer named undertakes to sell these cards at so low a price; but possibly it may be because they bear an advertisement. As has been more than once explained to the House, the Post Office is not at present in a position to reduce the price of the official post-cards. I extremely regret to say that, as a matter of fact, the contract has yet some time to run.

  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT—COLLECTIONS AT LIVERPOOL, COLCHESTER, AND CORK.
  MR. DEASYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When will appointments be made to collections of Inland Revenue now vacant at Liverpool, Colchester, and Cork; and, will the third class Collectors of Inland Revenue, whoso promotions have been deferred by the non-filling of these vacancies, be compensated for their monetary loss in not receiving their promotions?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, that appointments had been made to collections of Inland Revenue at Liverpool, Colchester, and Cork. The third-class Collectors of Inland Revenue, whose promotions had been deferred by the non-filling of those vacancies, will not be compensated for

  59
  their monetary loss in not receiving their promotions.

  FRANCE—THE PARIS EXHIBITION IN 1889.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement that has appeared in the newspapers is correct, that Her Majesty's Government has declined to take part officially in the French Exhibition of 1889; and, whether, if the statement be correct, it is intended that henceforward Her Majesty's Government shall take no official part in any Foreign Exhibitions, or that there are special grounds for the refusal in this particular case?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I informed the House last Thursday that Her Majesty's Government has declined to take part officially in the French Exhibition of 1889. No such inference as the hon. Member suggests is to be drawn from that fact. In the present case, the date of the proposed Exhibition has been fixed so as to synchronize with the Centenary of, and to commemorate, the French Revolution. It does not appear to Her Majesty's Government appropriate to join officially in celebrating political events in a foreign country, where differences of opinion exist regarding them.

  ADMIRALTY—POLICE FINE ON A NAVAL LIEUTENANT.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the fact that a Naval Lieutenant has been fined in a Portsmouth Police Court for a common assault; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): A Naval Lieutenant has been fined for a common assault. It appears that when out riding he came into collision with a cart, and in a moment of irritation hit the driver with his riding whip. The officer apologized for the transaction, and has been fined; and the Commander-in-Chief has expressed his disapproval of his conduct. I do not propose to take any further action in the matter.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—CAPTAIN HORTON, INSPECTOR OF SADDLERY AT WOOLWICH.
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether Captain Horton, Riding Master of the 4th Dragoon Guards, who has just been appointed Inspector of Saddlery at Woolwich, is still on the active list of his regiment; and, whether, as his service is only 26 years, 315 days, or thereabouts, he is entitled, under Article 92 of Royal Warrant of 31st December, 1886, to retirement and full pension of his rank, having attained neither the required age nor length of service?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): Captain Horton is at present temporarily employed as Inspector of Saddlery, and is still on the active list of his regiment. Captain Horton will be entitled to retire on the pension earned by 20 years' service in November next.

  TITHES—DISTRAINT FOR NON-PAYMENT, SHINFORD, BERKS.
  SIR THOMAS GROVEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact, as reported in The Mark Lane Express of 9th May, that a distraint for tithes was carried out, on Monday 2nd instant, at Shinford, Berks, by order of the Dean and Chapter of Hereford, on property belonging to the Reverend B. Body, of Eldon House, Reading, and that, in consequence of a large cattle fair being held on the same day in the immediate neighbourhood, a rick of hay, valued at £70, was sold for £51, to the great loss of Mr. Body; whether it is lawful to distrain for tithe, as in this case, on the Monday, the notice for such distraint having only been given, by advertisement in the local newspapers, on the Saturday previous; and, whether, the notice being one only of one day, the distraint is invalid?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State is in communication with the Dean and Chapter as to the facts quoted; but as yet there has not been time to receive a reply. The Secretary of State must decline to give an

  61
  opinion as to the legality of the proceedings. If the person distrained upon feels aggrieved, he has his remedy at law.

  CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN—H.R.H. THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in pursuance of the arrangements made in respect of His Royal Highness the Duke of Con-naught, it is also contemplated that His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet, the Duke of Edinburgh, shall receive leave of absence from his post in order to be present at Her Majesty's Jubilee; whether there is any precedent for the Commander in Chief of this Fleet being allowed to come on leave; whether any stops will be taken to show the exceptional nature of the proposed action in this case; and, for how long a period leave will be granted?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I have given leave to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to come home and be present at Her Majesty's Jubilee, and arrangements have been made to carry out that object. The arrangement is in accordance with precedent; and the exceptional nature of the occasion so speaks for itself as to render it unnecessary to issue any special order on the subject. The Duke will be absent from his command about 10 days.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the noble Lord be kind enough to say whether the Duke's pay and emoluments are to go on?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—RETIRED SERGEANTS OF VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended that Sergeants of Volunteers, if recommended by their Commanding Officers, should, on retirement after 10 years' service, be permitted to retain their rank and wear their uniform; and, if so, when an official communication to this effect will be made to officers commanding Volunteer Corps?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): There will appear in the new edition of
  62
  Volunteer Regulations, which is now being printed, a Rule authorizing sergeants of Volunteers retiring after 10 years' service, if specially recommended by their Commanding Officers, to retain their rank and wear their sergeants' uniform, with the distinguishing badge which denotes honorary members of the Force.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MISCARRIAGE OF SUMMONSES.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY(for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE)asked the Postmaster General, How it came about that all the summonses to witnesses for the defence in the recent case between Mr. Hazley, the Postmaster of Blackrock, and Mr. Little, which were detained in the Blackrock Post Office, managed to slip into the same newspaper; and, if the newspaper was delivered in the ordinary course of post; and, if so, what is the explanation of the mistake not being discovered in time?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In answer to the hon. Baronet's further Question, I have to explain that all the subpoenas were in one envelope. The newspaper into which the letter containing them slipped was delivered at its address in the ordinary course on the 14th of April. The letter, however, was not given back from that address till the 16th.

  EGYPT—THE NEGOTIATIONS—EVACUATION BY THE BRITISH.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that an agreement has been come to with the Porte as to the date of the evacuation of Egypt by the British?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I can give the hon. Member no other answer than that which I gave him on Friday, when he asked the same Question without Notice.

  WAR OFFICE—SKILLED AND ORDINARY WORKMEN AT ENFIELD.
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, The number of skilled workmen employed at Enfield, as compared with the number of ordinary labourers, and the relative wages received by each class?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: There are 1,284 skilled workmen employed at the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield, as compared with 803 ordinary labourers. The wages of the former vary from 5½d. to 1s. per hour; those of the latter from 4½d. to 9d.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)—SALARIES OF POOR LAW OFFICERS.
  MR. WADDYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether medical and other officers appointed by Boards of Guardians are officers for life, and whether the salaries paid to them annually are unalterable, except with the consent of such officers, however greatly their duties may be diminished; whether he is aware that in consequence of the great decrease in the number of paupers (amounting in some cases to about one-half) during the last few years, many of those officers are now receiving salaries out of all proportion to the duties they have to perform; and, whether he would be willing to suggest that the Royal Commission on the Civil Service should extend their inquiries to the question of the Salaries of Poor Law Officers; or whether he will, by a clause in the forthcoming County Government Bill or by some other means, empower Boards of Guardians to regulate the salaries of their officers according to the duties required of them?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): District medical officers and relieving officers are, speaking generally, appointed for life, subject, of course, to the proper performance of their duties, and their salaries cannot be reduced without their consent. It is not the case that there has been, on the whole, "a great decrease in the number of paupers during the last few years," although, no doubt, in particular instances this has been so. Neither is it the case, in my opinion, that many of these officers are receiving salaries "out of proportion" to the duties they have to perform. I could not undertake to suggest that the Royal Commission on the Civil Service should extend their inquiries to the salaries of Poor Law officers, as this would be entirely beyond the scope of their labours; but the question of the powers which should be possessed by Boards of Guardians with respect to their officers will receive
  64
  consideration in connection with the County Government Bill.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE TELEGRAPH OFFICE, DUBLIN.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that five first-class appointments in the Telegraph Office, Dublin, which were sanctioned by the Treasury several months ago, have not yet been made; whether four similar appointments, caused by vacancies in same office, have yet been carried out; and, whether, considering the delay in declaring the appointments, the clerks promoted will receive "back pay" from the date on which the appointments were sanctioned by the Treasury?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I am aware that the appointments to which the hon. Member refers have not yet been filled; but I hope now to be able to fill them shortly. Whether the persons upon whom they may be conferred can be allowed to draw the salaries of their new posts from a date anterior to that on which they enter on the duties shall be considered.

  SITTINGS AND ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in consideration of the shortness of the Recess at Easter, the Government will inform the House as to the date and probable duration of the adjournment at Whitsuntide?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Sir, the Government have felt some hesitation in deciding on the proposals to be made to the House as to a Whitsuntide Recess, as, although the holiday at Easter was a very short one, it must be admitted that the condition of Public Business, taken alone, would not warrant the Government in proposing a long adjournment next week; but having regard to the fact that the House has been sitting almost without a break for nearly four months, and the physical exhaustion which incessant and prolonged attendance has produced, not only in Members, but in the officers of the House, we have come to the conclusion that it will probably conduce to

  65
  the better conduct of Business if we adjourn on Tuesday afternoon, the 24th, after a Morning Sitting, until Monday, the 6th of June; and I may venture to express the confident hope that before the adjournment substantial progress will be made with the urgent Business which is, or will be brought, under the consideration of the House.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked whether the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill would be taken next week?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I prefer to mention that somewhat later.

  CHURCH OF ENULAND—CONVOCATION OF THE PROVINCE OF CANTERBURY.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the following Resolution, said to have been unanimously passed by the Upper House of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, and to the debate thereon, reported in The Times of the 11th May—
  "That the President be requested to apply for the assenting license of the Crown for making a canon to enlarge and re-arrange the representation of the clergy of the Province of Canterbury in Convocation, in conformity with the annexed table. The table is to consist of four columns, detailing respectively the dioceses, the archdeaconries, the number of proctors at present, and the number proposed,"
  and to the statement of the proposer of the Resolution that it—
  "Was adopted in order to avoid the interference of a secular Parliament;"
  whether it is true, as stated in the course of debate, that there is no precedent for the course proposed; and, whether Government, before granting the application, or assenting to any other course calculated or intended to impair or question the supremacy of Parliament, will give this House an opportunity of considering the subject?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have had my attention called to the Resolution to which the hon. and learned Member refers; but, up to the present time, no application of the nature involved in the proposition referred to has been made to the Crown. If it is made, it will receive the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and no course will be taken by the Government which will impair or question the
  66
  authority of Parliament, as defined and laid down by Statute.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE OATHS BILL.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What course the Government propose to take in respect to a Bill to amend the Law as to Oaths now standing for second reading; and, whether the objects proposed to be attained under the said Bill are not already, to a great extent, provided for by Statute?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Her Majesty's Government, without denying that there are points in the Oaths Bill which deserve the consideration of Parliament, are unable to concur with the Bill in its present form. The objects proposed to be obtained in the Bill introduced are, to a great extent, provided by the Evidence Amendment Act, 1869, which enables a witness who objects to take the oath, or a person upon whose conscience the oath is not binding, to give evidence, after making a declaration in the words stated in the Statute. So far as witnesses are concerned, there is no necessity, as the Government are advised, for the Bill.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Act of 1869 did not apply to jurors at all; that many jurors were escaping from duty, rightly or wrongly, by professing to be persons without religious belief; that the Act of 1869 did not affect any case in which barristers, solicitors, magistrates, or other persons were required to take the oath of allegiance, or any of the cases of promissory oaths in any of these classes.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not able to answer the hon. Gentleman on a question of law. If he desires to have an answer given perhaps he will be so good as to put the Question on the Paper.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, his only object was to direct the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury to these classes. He did not desire an answer.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE FLINTSHIRE MAGISTRACY.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN(for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE) (Dublin Co., S.) asked the First Lord of the Treasury,

  67
  If the Lord Chancellor will communicate with the Lord Lieutenant of Flintshire, with a view to ascertaining whether there are any Nonconformists in the county qualified for the magistracy; and, if it be found upon inquiry that there are, whether the Lord Chancellor will cause the necessary steps to be taken to place thorn upon the Bench?
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he was aware that the Members for the county and borough of Flint, one of whom is a Nonconformist, are qualified to act, and, as a, matter of fact, do act, as magistrates for counties other than the County of Mint, and whether there is any valid reason for their exclusion from the Bench of the county which they represent in Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he was not aware of the facts which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, as he (Mr. W. H. Smith) was not intimately acquainted with the List of the Magistracy of the United Kingdom. As to the Question of the hon. Baronet, the Lord Chancellor saw no reason to doubt that the Lord Lieutenant of Flintshire had arranged to recommend those Gentlemen whom he considered to be most suited to the Magisterial Bench in each district, having regard to all the circumstances of each case; and he was not aware that any circumstances had arisen which called for his interference.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true, as stated in several newspapers, that the British Government have annexed Zulu-land to the Crown; and, if that is so, whether this has been done with the sanction of the Zulu nation; and, also, whether it is customary or right, in the case of such vast territories, to annex them without the consent of Parliament?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I can but refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave a few nights ago, in which I stated that Sovereignty had been proclaimed over Zululand, and that the Zulus had assented.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what steps were taken to discover the views of the Zulus?
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: Steps were taken by informing the Zulus what was going to be done.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will give the House an early opportunity of expressing its opinion upon this most important action of the Government?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): There will, I think, be an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the Colonial Vote.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: When?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: That depends on the progress of Public Business.

  RAILWAY RATES BILL.
  In reply to Mr. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby),
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, that this Bill would be reprinted, and would be in the hands of Members shortly.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUEBILL.
  In reply to Mr. DILLON (Mayo, E.),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he hoped the Bill would be reached to-night. If not reached to-night, he was not able to say when it would be taken,

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.

    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,998,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Provisions, Forage, Fuel, Transport and other Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888."
    COLONEL DUNCAN: It will be in the recollection of the Committee that the Army Estimates were under consideration some days ago, and that certain Votes were taken up to the small hours of the morning, when,

    69
    in consequence of an appeal that was made to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), he offered to give a more general discussion upon this Vote than it was possible to take upon the Votes as they wore submitted to the Committee on the first night. I trust that in any step I am about to take I shall not abuse the privilege which the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to grant to the Committee. There are, however, two points to which I specially desire to direct the attention of the Committee, and they are connected with the paymasters and the quartermasters of the Army. With regard to the paymasters, I wish to remind the Committee that system of appointing these officers has been frequently changed, and that the effect of these constant changes has been very prejudicial to the position and interests of the officers employed in the Army Pay Department, who complain that they have not been treated with the same consideration which has been extended to the members of other Departments of the Army. For instance, while the officers of the Commissariat and the Ordnance Store Department are always certain of obtaining the rank of lieutenant colonel, after having reached the rank of major in the course of four or five years' further service, that privilege is denied to the officers of the Army Pay Department. A very small number of officers connected with that Department succeed in obtaining the rank of lieutenant colonel, even although they may have been employed in active service in the field, and I need scarcely say that it is extremely mortifying to an officer who has been a combatant to see a non-combatant promoted over his head. I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) will see that the very moderate appeal which the officers of the Army Pay Department make shall receive a favourable consideration. I have not sprung this question suddenly upon the Committee, seeing that nearly a year ago I stated the grievances of this body of officers. I may point out that they are admirable officers, and that their branches of the Service is working as well as any other in the Army. I therefore trust that their grievances and claims will receive some consideration. There is a special reason for bringing the matter before the House
    70
    this year. Under the recent Warrant it has been decided that for 1887 no step on retirement shall be given, so that if the officers of the Army Pay Department do not get the privilege enjoyed by the Commissariat and Ordance Store Departments this year, they will still remain in the rank they now hold, although, in point of actual service, they will be senior to other officers who may be promoted. There are one or two other points in connection with this Department which are worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. It is a matter to be regretted that the Department has no representative in the War Office. All the other Departments of the Army have some representation among the permanent officials of the Government. The great strides which have been made in connection with the Commissariat and the Ordnance Store Department have been in the main duo to the fact that those Departments have had representation at the War Office. There is no such representation in regard to the Army Pay Department, and I therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State to take into his careful consideration the propriety of having some link, so to speak, at the War Office between himself and this large and important body of officers. Passing from that Department, I come now to an entirely different matter—namely, the Quartermasters' Department. I have myself, on more than one occasion, brought the grievances of the quartermasters before the House, and I believe that their case has been frequently commented upon in this House; but I found that, on the whole, the opinion of the War Office has been that the grievances complained of are not very great. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State consented to the appointment of a Departmental Committee, and the result of the inquiry of that Committee has been to prove that there really is a case, because additional advantages, to a considerable extent, have been given to the Department; although, in my opinion, the concessions which have been made have not covered all the ground which ought to have been covered. It must always be borne in mind that the Army of this country is enlisted on the voluntary principle, and, therefore, that it is desirable to give

    71
    proper inducements to the men who join the Army. At present, the only temptation you offer is deferred pay at the end of service, and the dreary prospect of passing into the Reserve, which really is no better than passing into the workhouse. The men who are passed into the Reserve find great difficulty in obtaining employment; and I see from the workhouse returns that a very large proportion of the men belonging to the Army Reserve have been compelled to become paupers. If your desire is to induce a better class of men to enter the Army, I am afraid that you will not accomplish your object by treating the men as you do at present. You must certainly make the inducements and temptations to enter the Army far greater than they are now. Let me call attention to the position of the quartermasters. They have essentially sprung from the ranks, and is their treatment so favourable as to afford a temptation to other men to enter the Army? How are they treated? I am sorry to say that they are treated differently from any other officers who may be promoted from the ranks, and that they are placed at great disadvantage. These quartermasters get commissions so late in life, that when the time comes for compulsory retirement there are two or three years' service wanting to entitle them to the maximum pension of £200 a-year, and for each year's time they are short they are mulcted £10. If, on the other hand, a man commenced to act as quartermaster in comparative youth or middle age, when he reaches the maximum of service to entitle him to a pension, and consents to serve for an extra number of years, he is unable to add to the amount of his pension at all. Surely, if it is right to mulct a man £10 a-year from his pension for every year of service that he is short, when the War Office retains a man in the same position beyond the time which would entitle him to the maximum pension, he ought to receive an addition of £10 every year. Unless a man finds that he has a prospect of increasing his pension by staying he will undoubtedly leave the Service, and the country will not only have to pay the maximum pension of £200 a-year, but will have to pay the man who takes the place of the officer who retires upon his pension. I believe that if a different principle were adopted
    72
    the sum saved to the country would be very large indeed; and, therefore, apart from the question of justice, I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War on the lower question of economy to do something to make the conditions of service in regard to the quartermasters of the Army better than they are now, They are excellent men, who represent what I may call the cream of the Service. In an ordinary case, when an officer has risen from the ranks he is well able to look after himself, but these men require to be treated with special tenderness and gentleness. I therefore hope the Secretary of State, taking into consideration the value of their services, and the justice of their demand, will consent to do something in their behalf. I have only one word more to say, and it has reference to the Royal Horse Artillery. The position of that branch of the Service has been before the country now for a long time, and it is understood that a considerable reduction in the force of the Royal Horse Artillery has been decided upon. I accept that decision, and will say nothing about it in any controversial spirit. There were, however, circumstances which occurred during the past year which led to my being to some extent the historian of that corps, to which for 30 years I belonged. I had, therefore, special opportunities of becoming acquainted with the bitterness of the feeling which has been occasioned by the decision of the War Office. I could recite stories of the gallantry of this branch of the Service which would make the eyes of hon. Members glisten and their cheeks glow. I am satisfied that those who are serving in the ranks to-day would emulate the deeds of those who went before them. I will, however, on this occasion do no more than express my most deep regret that the country is likely to lose the services of any portion of this most distinguished Corps. They can never be re-created with their old prestige.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down; but I desire to draw the attention of the Committee for a few minutes to a question which is very germane to the Vote now under the consideration of the Committee—namely, the question of the rations supplied to

    73
    the British Army. I have already had the honour of bringing that matter two or three times before the House. On the last occasion, the Vote was not brought on until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, and I am afraid that my remarks did not make any great impression upon those to whom they were directed—at any rate, the matter has not received that consideration which I think it is entitled to. Unfortunately, the frequent changes which have taken place in the Departmental Chiefs must necessarily have made the consideration of any special question most irregular. The rapidity with which one Secretary of State for War has succeeded another has rendered it difficult to bring the mind of the Head of the Department to questions of this nature. I may say that the question was brought under the consideration of the War Office some years ago, and General Peel presided over a Committee appointed to inquire into the matter. The Committee were of opinion that something ought to be done, and that better rations ought to be provided. But General Peel recommended that, instead of giving better rations, the soldier should get a little more pay. There is now a strong and growing feeling, especially in certain medical quarters, that the rations supplied to a soldier are too small. The surgeons of the Army Medical Department have reported that the soldier's ration of ¾lb. of meat is certainly too small for the support of his constitution. He certainly receives ¾lb. of meat; but if any hon. Member would go to the barracks and see how the rations are served up, he would find that those ¾lb. of meat are boiled down to a very small bulk indeed, so that in the end the soldier gets very little more than four or five ounces, after the meat has been cooked. Then, again, the soldier practically gets all his rations at one meal—namely, at dinner; he receives scarcely anything at all in the morning or in the evening. The consequence is, that when he goes out in the evening he gets a little liquor; the drink—operating upon an empty stomach—produces a very bad effect indeed. Although the question is one of importance concerning the regular soldier, it is of still greater importance when we have to deal with the case of the recruit. The recruit is generally a growing boy, often a
    74
    weak, weedy boy, who is called upon to do a considerable amount of work of an intricate and complicated character. He has his drill to learn and a large amount of work to do, and he is certainly not well fed. He has to expend a considerable portion of his pay in buying extra food—such as milk, butter, bread, and cheese, which he finds it necessary to obtain in order to enable him to carry on the work he has to do. It may be said that so long as he has the money why should he not spend it in food; but in the case of a young recruit, he is open to very strong temptation to spend it in amusement. If he does, the result is, that he gets an insufficient amount of food; and we know very well that there are a far larger number of diseases prevalent in the Army than there ought to be. Hon. Members have frequently referred to free rations. Now, free rations are an entire delusion, a snare, and almost a swindle. A recruit is told when he joins the Army that he will receive free rations; but those free rations consist simply of ¾ lb. of meat, a little coffee, and some bread. He has to provide himself with milk, with butter, choose, and various other things, and finding himself disappointed in the idea which had been impresssd upon him that he would get free rations, and that such free rations are purely ornamental, a very bad impression is produced upon him. I am afraid that the large number of the desertions we find reported in the Officers' Returns are very much due to the fact of the young soldier having found out that the delusive hopes held out to him have not been realized in actual practice. Considering the responsibilities of the career upon which he is entering and the probability of his losing his life in the service of his country, I think he is very badly paid, and that he ought to be provided with better and more ample rations. There are a large number of men engaged at the present moment all over the country in recruiting for the Service. I think it is very desirable that when they go down to the country districts they shall be able to describe the Service in such a way as to induce young fellows to come forward and to render the Service popular, so that we may get into the Army a better class of men. It will be said that recruiting is going on very favourably; but labour is now depressed, and there are a

    75
    large number of men out of work. When employment becomes more abundant and more remunerative, the recruiting sergeant will have to compete with the labour market, and therefore it is highly essential that he should be able to offer an adequate temptation to the recruit. I will not weary the House by going into any other phase of the question. Any hon. Member, however, who looks at the Returns will be struck by the large increase of desertion that is now going on. Last year, out of a number of recruits, which amounted in round numbers to 35,000, nearly 5,500 deserted in the course of the same year, or 13·7 per cent. There was a much smaller number of desertions in 1883, showing that some cause must be at work which is rendering the Service less popular than it used to be. No doubt, a good many of these desertions are caused by a feeling of disappointment in the minds of young persons who have joined the Army at finding the inducements held out to them unrealized. I believe it is a fact which, in the great majority of cases, determines them to throw up the Service, and to retire into private life at all hazards. I think I have shown that if the regular soldier is sufficiently fed, at all events the recruit is not, and I would ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is not desirable to appoint some kind of Committee to consider the question. I do not want to lay down any hard and fast rules, or to define any machinery by which the matter is to be carried out. I have no doubt that it would involve a considerable additional expense; but I think it would be worth the money if the War Office could be induced to provide better rations, especially in substances of a fatty and farinacious nature. At the present moment the soldier may get enough meat; but he certainly does not get enough of other articles—such as butter and cheese. Therefore, I ask for the appointment of a Committee, although whether such a Committee should be a Committee of this House, or of a departmental character, I do not presume to say.
    THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE): Perhaps it will be the most convenient course to dispose of the various questions one at a time as they arise in the course of the discussion of the Army Es-
    76
    timates rather than mix up different questions. The points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Colonel Duncan) and the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Dr. Farquharson) are altogether different, and must be replied to separately. The question of rations was brought forward last year by the hon. Member for West Aberdeen, who stated his case very fully, as he has done this evening, and was replied to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). One point raised by the hon. Member was, whether the matter was to be met by an increase of rations to the soldier, because if so it should be borne in mind, as was pointed out last year, that that would involve an addition of not less than £750,000 to the Army Estimates—too serious an increase to be decided upon rashly. The hon. Member will also know how reluctant the Government are to increase the Army Expenditure without the very strongest grounds indeed. Then comes another question, whether the ration is sufficient, and what the position of the soldier is as compared with what it was a few years ago. He now receives 1s. a-day, from which 5d. a-day is deducted for mess; but he also receives 5½d. a-day in addition, and 2d. a-day deferred pay. The position of the soldier now is much better in regard both to pay and rations than it was a few years ago, and as contrasted with foreign Armies, the British soldier receives more than double the rations of a Russian soldier, and more than any Continental soldier receives, the French soldier being the only one who can in any way approach to us. Including pay and rations, the British soldier now receives what is equal to 1s. 7½d. a-day, as against 1s. 3d. in 1866. It is apparent, therefore, that the position of the English soldier has been much improved of late years. I believe it would be of no advantage to the soldier to increase his rations by reducing his pay, because that would involve our contracting for special vegetables, and would curtail the liberty of choice which the soldier now has of purchasing certain articles of food for himself. The hon. Gentleman says that the Report of the Committee which sat in 1867 was favourable to an increase of rations; but as far as I am aware it is not the belief of medical men that

    77
    our soldiers are at all underfed. As a matter of fact, I do believe that there are very few regiments in which there is anything like a full stoppage made, and that affords strong evidence that, so far as the officers are concerned, they consider that the soldier does get enough to eat. As to the appointment of a Committee, the War Office is already over pressed at the present moment with Committees of all sorts and sizes, and I am not prepared, therefore, to accede to the proposal off-hand, but I will undertake that the suggestions which have been made shall receive due consideration.
    COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETT: As we have permission upon this Vote to speak on general matters I should like to say a few words about the strength of the Army. Hon. Members are probably in possession of the General Annual Return handed in in October last, and the preliminary annual return of the Army this year. They are both of them most important documents, and they furnish hon. Members with some valuable information about the state of the Army and its effective strength. If hon. Members will take the trouble to examine the statistics contained in those documents I think they will arrive at a very good idea as to the state of the Army, and a comparison of its effective strength for the last 20 years, commencing with the 1st of January, 1866, and ending with the 1st of January, 1886. But while these Annual Returns furnish us with valuable and instructive facts they also afford a considerable amount of disappointment, As far as the numbers go it appears that the Army has been tolerably well kept up. On the 1st of January, 1866, the strength of the Army was 201,641, and on the 1st of January, 1886, it was 200,785; and it was 230,857 on the 1st of January this year. Although the increase, so far as the numbers go, is satisfactory, there seems to me to be something more required than the actual numbers—the age and physique of the men must also be considered. In 1873, the year when the short service system first came into operation, 46 per cent of the men who enlisted were under 25 years of age, and 31 per cent were over 30 years of age. In 1885, the last year for which the Returns are made up, the number of
    78
    recruits under 25 years of age was 62 per cent, and there were only 14 per cent over 30 years of age. That is the natural result of what is called the "short service" system. It is no exaggeration to say that our ranks have been filled up with boy-soldiers. If scholarship tends to make a good soldier then certainly the Army has improved; but I contend that that is not so, and that something more than scholarship is needed. Scholarship does not make a soldier capable of hard work, of enduring hard knocks, and the fatigue of a campaign. It would appear from these Returns that the aim of the authorities has been to get recruits with a superior education rather than to pay attention to physique, robust health, personal strength, and power of endurance. This, no doubt, suits the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), but it is certainly not all that is required in the Army. What we want is men with broad chests, and a good sound constitution, who know how to use the weapons placed in their hands, and are capable of undergoing the effects of a hard campaign in a bad climate. For such purposes I would prefer a lad with a good physique, who cannot read and write, to a more delicate lad who knows how to make obtruse calculations in decimal fractions. No system of superior education will compensate for want of personal strength and power of endurance, although it looks very well in theory. In the year 1873 I find that we had 21,753 soldiers who could neither read nor write, and only 10,930 who had received what is called a superior education. In the year 1885 there were only 5,473 who could neither read nor write, and 148,723 of superior education. There is, however, this remarkable fact, that all this superior education does not make your soldier one whit better in regard to his conduct, for I find that in 1885 there were far more courts-martial than in 1873. More than that, it is a very significant fact that desertion, casualties, and discharges have greatly increased under the short service system. In 1873 the net loss by desertion was 1,720, while in 1885 the net loss by desertion had increased to 2,975, or nearly double. In 1885 the loss by death was 2,585, and the number of those discharged and invalided

    79
    was 3,581, 1,008 were discharged for bad conduct, 1,488 bought themselves out, and 3,531 retired on the completion of their service. Hon. Members who pay attention to this matter will find that the total withdrawal in that year was no less than 35,000, of whom only one-third went into the Army Reserve. Upon that basis it will be found that the whole loss in the regular ranks in the Army was something like 23,000 or 24,000—that is to say, one in seven of the men who enlisted. It appears to me that that is a most serious loss and a loss which, I maintain, the short service system is not able to stand. You may train a lad to a perfect appreciation of drill, discipline and order, you may train him to perform his duty thoroughly, and you may train him to a perfect appreciation of the honour of his corps and of his colours; but what is the use of all that if, after a few years, he is to be sent into the Reserve? In the Horse Artillery it takes four years to make an efficient driver, and yet in two years more that man is gone. It is almost sufficient to break the hearts of your non-commissioned officers to have to deal with a constant stream of raw recruits. The system which invites all the strongest young men in the country into the ranks of the Army, at the same time instilling into them the necessity of a superior education, and then draining them off in the course of a few years to earn their living as best they can, is a most pernicious system. It is a system not justified by results, and it is useless in practice. The fact is that Englishmen have no idea of originating military notions of their own. We copy most servilely the systems of other nations. But for the battles of Wörth, Weissenberg, Gravelotte, and Sedan we should never have copied the Gorman system. In the Crimean War we looked upon the Trench Army as the greatest military machine in the world, and we had our shakoes and uniforms cut according to the French Fashion. Then came the year 1870 and France, as a military nation, was found to be a sham. The German Army was then found to be the best, and the result was that our French military shakoes were thrown away to be replaced by the helmets of the Germans. We invariably copy foreign nations, and I believe if the Zulus had got the better of us in our campaign against
    80
    them the uniform of the British soldier would have been a cincture of cows' tails. Hitherto we have made spasmodic efforts, which have not only been most costly but exceedingly cruel. In spite of what enthusiasts may say of the short service system the ranks of the Army Reserve will, in my opinion, decrease rather than increase, because a man knows that if he enters the Army Reserve it will not be easy for him to obtain employment. We cannot wonder that an employer of labour who has to keep factories and other means of employment at work should refuse to employ men from the Reserve. No man engaged in a great commercial operation will take a man who may be called away at any on moment, should a certain emergency arise; and as the hon. and gallant Member for the Holborn Division of Fins-bury (Colonel Duncan) says, the result is that a large proportion of the paupers in many of the workhouses are men on the Reserve List. I am glad the hon. and gallant Member has called attention to that fact, because it reminds me that not long ago I had placed before me a list of 10 workhouses, and from that list I deduced this extraordinary fact—that 27 per cent of the paupers were on the Army Reserve List. The short service system is totally unsuited to this country. England is not like Germany where the Army is exclusively used for one purpose. We have to send our Army to Burmah, to Egypt, or to India, whereas the German Army is confined to Germany. Consequently, the conditions which apply to the German Army are not those which govern the British Army. It must be borne in mind that we have enormous possessions abroad which require the services of our Army to defend them. I know the advocates of the short service system say that we can retain our lads and wait until they grow; but there is no time for that, as any hon. Member may see if he takes the trouble to inspect the great military depots, and visit the graveyards and 1ho hospitals which are the natural consequence of the short service system. We are obliged to send our young soldiers to unhealthy climates, and they are sent home after a short service to die, or to become invalided and sent to the hospitals. That was not the character of the men who fought in the Peninsula War, the Crimean War, and

    81
    in India before the Mutiny, and in the Mutiny itself. They were men of a very different stamp. Every man in the Army 30 years ago was worth two of the men of the present day, although I do not say this in disparagement of the young soldiers of to-day, who do their work bravely and well in the midst of a campaign in the face of the enemy. It it not their fault if, instead of being veterans, they are mere striplings; but it is our fault if we impose upon them tasks which they have not sufficient strength to perform, and which they are unable to perform with vigour and success. I maintain that an Army Corps of 100,000 men 30 years ago had the same fighting capacity as 200,000 men now. The argument derived from this is that the Army costs twice as much as it is worth. Every soldier now-a-days costs about £100 a-year. That is what the cost is when a man enters the Army as a recruit; but when he is sent into the Reserve he is worth at least £200 a-year. It will be said—"What limit can be found?" No Conservative on this side of the House has broader views on political and general matters than myself; but I am a Conservative in my belief that we had a far better Army, as regards the constitution of the Army, 30 years ago than we have at the present moment. I hope the nation will always have the greatest solicitude for the condition of the Army, and the system under which it is constituted. No one wishes to indulge in idle dreams of military competition with foreign nations; but the British nation has a right to demand that its Army shall be maintained as regards armament, training, and organization. While on the subject of the British soldier I may refer to an incident which happened not very long ago. A right hon. Gentleman, a Member of this House, made some very severe accusations against the British soldier. He accused him of acts of cruelty and inhumanity in the Soudan War, charging him with bayonetting the Soudanese as they lay wounded on the ground. To such charges as those I can give an emphatic contradiction, on evidence just as good as that on which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. Those who know what battle-fields are like on which the British soldier fights, when he is dealing with an Oriental or uncivilized
    82
    enemy, will know that it is a very usual thing for an enemy to feign death until the Englishman approaches him, perhaps bringing water to relieve his thirst, or medical appliances, and to endeavour to shoot or stab him. These things were constantly done in the Soudan War, and is it to be wondered at that a man placed in such a position should protect himself by putting some such wounded wretch out of his misery, rather than run the risk of being killed himself? The well known Peace Party in this country is often fond of speaking bitterly against the Army when this country was not at war, but directly there is a sound of war in the air they are the very persons to press round the soldiers and praise them. I remember some lines which are àpropos to this point; but I do not know who wrote them—
    "When danger comes, and the foe is nigh,
    'God and the soldier' is the cry;
    When the enemy's beat and danger righted,
    God is forgotten and the soldier slighted."
    I would say that such accusations as those to which I have referred do not find favour with the great bulk of the British people.
    MR. FINLAY&c): I desire to say a few words for the purpose of endorsing the appeal which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Colonel Duncan) on behalf of the quartermasters, and for some reform in the Army Pay Department. I do not wish to add anything to the statement which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made, with very full knowledge of the subject except that my attention has been called to the matter, and I earnestly press it upon the consideration of the Government. I will only add one observation. We have heard a great deal of the necessity of supplying our soldiers with the best possible weapons; but, after all, our success in war must depend upon the men themselves; and, therefore, I trust that steps will be taken to gratify the legitimate ambition of a deserving class, and to remove the grievances of which they complain in order to show that we properly appreciate the services which have been rendered to the country.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Department

    83
    over which I have the honour to preside is most anxious to remove any impression which may exist among any of those officers who are serving Her Majesty, that they will not do their best to remedy any grievance which may be proved to be a real grievance. The question of the Army Pay Department has been brought forward to-day by the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury with extreme moderation, and, on a previous occasion, as he has reminded the Committee, he was kind enough to give way. I am. sorry that I am unable to give a satisfactory answer to his appeal. The discussion has come upon me rather sooner than I expected; but I have given some attention to both of the points which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised, and what I am about to say will not, I trust, be altogether displeasing to him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman complains that the officers of the Army Pay Department after five years service do not obtain staff rank. He has pointed out that their position is a harsh one as contrasted with that of two other corps with which they compare themselves—namely, the Commissariat and the Ordnance Store Department, and he says that the officers complain that they are badly treated as compared with officers serving in other Departments. Now, in the first place, I should like to say that, at the present time, the War Office is engaged in remodelling the Commissariat Department, and all questions of rank whether in one department or another must be treated as a whole—that is to say, that it is impossible to concede claims in one Department without considering the effect upon another Department. In regard to the case of the paymasters, I may say that the whole subject is now undergoing very careful consideration, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is now trying to deal with the subject in as comprehensive a manner as was possible. We admit to a certain extent the justice of the claim which my hon. and gallant Friend supports, and we shall be prepared, when the time comes, for promulgating our general views in respect to the paymasters to give some recognition to their claim to staff appointments. As to the quartermasters, their case was considered last year before the Royal Warrant was issued, and the Royal Warrant gives the views of
    84
    the War Office of the time being upon the case of these officers; but I admit fully that there was one point which with regard to the quartermasters which we engaged to meet which has not been yet met. I stated the other day that it was intended to give a step in honorary rank to certain quartermasters; and I hope to be able in a few days to give the exact details of what we propose. Unfortunately I am not able to do so now. But before many days are over I believe I shall be able to state to the House exactly what we are able to do in regard to giving a step in honorary rank. I have now, I think, answered all the points of the hon. and gallant Member.
    COLONEL DUNCAN: There is the pension.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: As to the pension I fear that we do not see our way to dealing with that at present without opening the question in regard to other Departments; but the subject was considered at the time of the issuing of the Royal Warrant. With regard to the larger question of the reduction of the cost of the Army, I should be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rochester (Colonel Hughes-Hallett) could show me any scheme which is calculated to reduce the cost of the Army without diminishing its efficiency. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the War Office would not turn a deaf ear to any suggestion on that subject from whatever quarter of the House it may come. It would certainly receive the most careful attention of my hon. Friend and myself.
    SIR WALTER BARTTELOT: I should like to address a few words to the Committee, especially as this is the first opportunity I have had of congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on the very clear and lucid Memorandum which he placed before us at the commencement of the Session. My right hon. Friend, like many other men in the high position he now occupies, has come into that position under somewhat difficult circumstances. Probably up to the time of his appointment he had hardly ever turned his attention to the great questions of the Army, and he now finds himself, at a very difficult time, called upon to consider most intricate and involved questions. I can

    85
    only venture to express a hope that all those who are able to do so will give him that support which a man ought to receive who is endeavouring to do his duty under difficult and trying circumstances. My right hon. Friend has already made a speech in answer to the remarks which were made on the Memorandum he had placed on the Table of the House. In that speech my right hon. Friend complained, and rightly complained, of the present condition of affairs. He stated that if this House is prepared to vote the money, he should be prepared to place the Army in the most efficient condition possible. Well, Sir, it is that question of voting money which has been one of the main difficulties in regard to keeping up the efficiency of the Army. I will venture to say that it is one of the questions that deserve the very serious attention of the House. I see that an hon. Gentleman opposite takes a different view; but I do not think that even he would wish to see the Army in any condition except that of absolute efficiency. What we require, and what we really ought to have, is that every portion of the Army should be effective and efficient; and it has been proved to us beyond dispute that even the arms they have been called upon to fight with have not been what they ought to have been, and ought never to have been placed in the hands of the soldiers of this country. There are two things upon which mainly depend the efficiency of the Army. The first is Vote 1 of these Estimates, for the men; and the second is Vote 12, for warlike stores. Yet these are the two Votes which I say, unhesitatingly, are more manipulated for Party purposes than any other two Votes in the whole of the Army Estimates. It cannot be generally known that under our system of government such is the case. It used to be the case until quite lately, that when anything was wanted to be done—such as a reduction in the number of men or something or other in connection with the supply of stores—these two Votes were made to suffer. What was the effect? Why, that the whole calculations with regard to the Army were upset. You did not know exactly how far you could go, or how much the efficiency of the Army might be impaired. Half a million had to come off somewhere, and, accordingly, the num-
    86
    ber of the men was reduced. That is the way in which we have been accustomed to deal with that portion of the quesiton. Then, again, as to stores; something more was to be reduced; and as the Vote for stores amounts to nearly £3,000,000, another £500,000 of reduction required must come off that, utterly regardless of the fact that the reduction was made for Party purposes, without any reference whatever to the efficiency of the Army. Everyone would admit that the efficiency of the Army was impaired; but there are only two Votes which can be easily manipulated; and, therefore, these two Votes, although they are more necessary than any others to keep up the efficiency of the Army, are the two which are invariably dealt with in this way. I have always thought, and I still think, that we ought to have some authority for the consideration of these questions. I do not know whether the Committee of this House, which is to inquire into the Army Estimates, will go into questions of this kind; but, as a great nation, the first thing we have to determine is what number of men we require, and how they are to be distributed—how many men we require for England, how many for Ireland, how many for India, and how many for the Colonies. Instead of this, we distribute our forces as exigencies arise, and then. cut off a certain proportion here and there, the result of which is that we rarely have the number of men we ought to be able to rely upon in the event of an emergency. It is precisely the same with our supply of stores. Surely the first thing we ought to do is to decide what quantity of stores we require, and every Member of the House should be able to see and know what the requirements of the country are; to insist that the Government shall keep up those requirements, and to see that all the stores are maintained in a proper and efficient state. Let me ask one question. Suppose we were to go to war at once, should we be able to get all the powder we require, especially of a particular kind, which we get now from Germany? If Germany were at war should we be able to get it? Would this country get one atom of that powder if Germany were at war herself? That is a very serious consideration, and if I regard the recent speech of the Secretary of State for War aright, he wishes

    87
    to know what he can depend upon Parliament to supply, in order that he may provide an adequate number of men and a sufficient supply of stores to provide the Army with all necessary appliances in the event of war. I have thought it right to say this, because I feel that it is a question upon which a great deal depends. We come here year after year, and we find that sometimes one thing is cut down and sometimes another is raised, while the real efficiency of the Army and of the stores is never considered at all. Then, again, there is another question. It is a question which has been already touched upon in the course of the discussion—namely, that of the Horse Artillery. I do not propose to enter into the question of the reduction of the Royal Horse Artillery at any length. I will only say that it is an arm which has done much good service in the past; and it is an arm which might be depended upon to do good service in the future. Further than that, it is an arm which cannot be got up at a moment's notice; but one in which the men require to be most carefully trained. I, therefore, venture to hope that my right hon. Friend will, if experience shows that he has made a mistake in reducing the number of the batteries of the Horse Artillery, have the boldness and courage to re-establish this branch of the Service. I understand that there are 14 batteries of Field Artillery which are to be converted into ammunition columns. In the case of war, I take it that we are to have two Army Corps. Surely my right hon. Friend cannot for a moment have regarded the efficiency of two Army Corps, if he seriously contemplates a project which would render 14 of the existing batteries deficient and unfit for the purposes for which they are now employed? The moment we go to war all the available horses, and, I presume, all the available men, are to be taken from those 14 batteries, and the Horse Artillery and the Field Artillery in the two Army Corps are to be made efficient by providing an additional train. If that is to be the case, there must, indeed, be a deficiency of Field Artillery for an active campaign. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will avail himself of the opportunity of explaining in what position we shall stand supposing that two Army Corps are called out for
    88
    active service and are engaged in war. What will be the position of the Army at home and of the Army in India, as well as of the forces in the Colonies? This is a very serious question, and it is one upon which, so far, we have had no real elucidation whatever. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a clear statement. There is another question which has been raised, and raised very strongly, in regard to the organization of the Artillery Force. We have a force of something like 33,000 men; and it has been suggested that this force should be divided into three branches—Horse Artillery, Field Batteries, and Garrison Artillery. Now, although it is suggested that the Horse Artillery and Field Batteries should go together, the two services are absolutely distinct. The Garrison Artillery stands, however, in a totally different position at the present moment. Any officer going into the Artillery would prefer the Horse Artillery or the Field Batteries to the Garrison Artillery, although it is the most scientific branch of the Army. Why is it that the officers dislike service with the Garrison Artillery? It is because they are put by themselves into small isolated forts all round the country, and they do not get the advantage of the promotion which other officers get who are serving in the field. It is, in fact, a place of the worst fortune, as it is called, and officers dislike it very much. Then, again, at the present day they are called upon to work enormous guns—guns which have cost very large sums of money, and the charges for which are also most expensive. I believe that one of the larger description of guns costs from £19,000 to £21,000, and the cost of each charge from £125 to £150. Some of the largest guns used in forts and the Navy are from 42 feet to 43 feet 8 inches long, and you require men to deal with them who have had a special training. You require men who have made them their study; and the officers who have specially studied this work and the construction of guns are the men who look forward to securing posts in your Arsenal at Woolwich, and your other manufacturing establishments. I understand that my right hon. Friend is going to increase the Garrison Artillery by 1,800 men—one half of which (900) are to be raised

    89
    this year. I know the question is a difficult one; but I say that it is a serious question, whether Garrison Artillery do not deserve a great deal more consideration than they appear to have had hitherto. It is in the hope that they will receive the consideration to which I think they are entitled, I have ventured to call the attention of my right hon. Friend to the matter. I come now to another question which is of great interest, and upon which we always receive valuable information from the hon. and gallant General my hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire (General Sir Frederick Fitzwygram), and that is the case of the Cavalry. It has been asserted, and, I believe, rightly, that whenever we have a little war on hand, and desire to send out a regiment of Cavalry, we have to take men and horses from other Cavalry regiments in order to make up the requisite strength. In that respect our system differs materially from that of foreign nations, who always keep their Cavalry and Artillery up to a war footing. They know that services of Cavalry or of Artillery are of little or no value unless they are regularly kept up, and, therefore, they use every possible means of keeping up their strength and efficiency. That is what we ought to do; but I am sorry to say that hitherto we have not followed the example of our Continental neighbours. I believe that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Hampshire maintains that every Cavalry regiment ought to have five squadrons, four to take into the field, and one to form a depot at homo. I quite agree with him, and have so stated in previous debates. From the squadron maintained as a depot at home men can be drafted as necessity arises, in order to keep the regiment in the field in a constant state of efficiency. My hon. and gallant Friend is of opinion that every Cavalry regiment should always have four squadrons in an absolute state of efficiency. It is an arm of which we have always been proud, and which has rendered the country good service; but, as it is now kept up, there would be great difficulty, in the event of a war, in putting into the field a force of Cavalry which a great country like this ought always to have at its disposal. Then, again, as to the Re-serves. You often experience a diffi-
    90
    culty in getting the proper men belonging to a regiment when you wish to fill up vacancies. You ought to know where all your Reserve men are, and try them every year, in order to see whether they retain their efficiency, and so that you may not have mere Reserves on paper, but real Reserves, capable of being called out at any moment. I hope my right hon. Friend will go one step further. Let him got his First Army Corps together, and let him attach to it the Generals and officers who will have to command it in the field. We should then be able to see what it is that we have to depend upon. The men would know their officers, and the officers their Generals, and we should then be quite certain that we had one Army Corps—perhaps two—that was really efficient and ready to take the field at a moment's notice. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend will understand the spirit in which I have made these remarks, and I hope they will commend themselves to his attention.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I am sure it cannot be held that our Army is a cheap Army; it is a very expensive Army indeed. In spending money on our Army, the great question is whether we get our money's worth for the great expenditure incurred. That depends very much upon organization. I am inclined to think, with the hon. and gallant Member for Rochester (Colonel Hughes-Hallett), that the Service has suffered, to some extent, from the short-service system. For service in India, and in other parts of the Empire, we need a larger proportion of long-service men. We have to maintain a large Army in India and all over the world, and we have gone too far in the direction of short service. When the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) was Secretary of State for War he took steps in the right direction, with a view of providing that the Army should be divided into long-service and short-service men; but the compromise we have now is one which means neither one tiling nor the other. What I have risen for, however, has been to ask one or two questions in reference to the finance of the Army. Our position in regard to the Army is this—after deducting the cost of the Army in India, to which the fullest contribution is made

    91
    by India, and also the contributions from the Colonies, we pay something near £19,000,000 for the Army we maintain for the defence of these Islands. For that purpose we have on paper something like 100,000 men, and the question is—are these men really effective? About 25,000 men are locked up in Ireland, and the remaining 75,000 are in England and Scotland. I believe there is much truth in what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Rochester in regard to the large deductions which must be made before we can get at the real effective state of the Army. I believe that a large portion of it is not effective, and that there are a very large number both of soldiers and recruits who are not efficient in many ways. It appears to be necessary, in order to keep up an efficient force in India and the Colonies, to emasculate the battalions serving here; and I think it is an exaggeration to say that one-half of the men who serve in England and Scotland are efficient men fit to take the field. Therefore, when we are paying £18,000,000 or £19,000,000 for an extremely small Army, which exists to a great extent on paper only, and which would be greatly reduced before we could put it in the field. I must say that I am very uneasy. I have no wish to reduce the cost so far as the home defences are concerned. We have heard a great deal about the necessity for providing fur the defence of our possessions in remote parts of the Empire; but I confess that we ought to feel much more interest in the defence of these Islands, and yet we possess but a very small, and altogether very insufficient Army. I ask whether the British taxpayer is fairly treated in regard to the financial arrangements? After deducting all the contributions we receive from the Colonies we have to pay £18,000,000 or £19,000,000 a-year for an emasculated Army, and what I want to ask is this, I believe that India pays the uttermost farthing that can be fairly charged upon her. I have never complained of that charge. I think it is quite right and proper seeing how dependent India is upon us for protection that she should pay every farthing of the cost which can be fairly charged upon her either directly or indirectly. But when we come to the Colonies we find a very different state of matters. We
    92
    have in the Crown Colonies some 25,000 men who really represent a great deal more than that number seeing that they are the pick of the Army. But the contributions received towards the support of that Army amount to but a small fraction of the cost. Even that little is being constantly diminished. In all our questions with the Colonies we are only too apt to seek a settlement by putting a little heavier burden upon the shoulders of the British taxpayer. The total contributions towards the cost of these 25,000 men was no more last year than £139,000, which is but a very small fraction of the annual expenditure of the troops sent there. The Colonies are progressing in wealth and prosperity; they are making immense progress; but I do not find that their contributions towards the cost of their defence are increasing, on the contrary, there has been a considerable decrease in the contributions received from the Colonies this year. I want to know why that decrease has taken place? I think we may say that both in India and in this country something like one-half of our effective and actual revenue is spent on the Army and Navy, and on the defences of the country. But on the other hand, in respect of the Colonies only, an infinitesimal portion of the revenue is devoted to those purposes. I want to know why the contributions from the Colonies are so small, and why they have been reduced this year from what they were last year? Why should the West Indies pay nothing at all for their defence? Honduras used to pay £5,700 a-year, and that contribution has been reduced to £700 this year. I want to know why a colony like Natal—a most ambitious colony—always seeking for a larger territory, with a revenue of £800,000 a-year, a great part of which is derived from the British expenditure on the troops employed in the colony—I want to know why Natal only pays the infinitesimal small sum of £4,000 a-year for its defence, or something like one-half per cent on its revenue, while the British taxpayer has to pay fully 50 per cent upon his? Let me take the case of Ceylon; geographically, and for many purposes it is an outlying district of India. It is a rich country with a revenue of £1,200,000 a-year, but for purposes of military defence the Island of Ceylon pays only 3 per cent of its

    93
    revenue; and I find that even that small payment has been considerably diminished this year, while India herself is required to pay a full contribution. Last year the contributions from the Colonies were reduced, and this year they have been still further reduced. Instead of paying 50 per cent like India why should Ceylon be only culled upon to pay 3 per cent of her revenue? In these days of depression, I think we ought to look to the interests of the British taxpayer, as well as to those of the rest of the British Empire; and I contend that the contributions of the Colonies are not adequate, and are not on a fair scale compared with the contributions of this country. I will only repeat, before I sit down, that I think something ought to be done to establish a more efficient long-service system for the employment of the Army in India and the Colonies. The noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) went considerable lengths in that direction; and I hope that, after what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Rochester and others, the Secretary of State for War will be inclined to go further in the same direction.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I perfectly agree with what has fallen from the Members who have already spoken in regard to the organization and administration of the Army. I think, however, the Committee should understand that we do not make these observations from any Party or personal point of view, either in reference to any particular Secretary of State for War, or any other official. The right hon. Gentleman who now fills that high position has made a first attempt to put things in a practical way in the Memorandum which has been laid before the House. He says—
    "The success of the Prussian organization in 1870 for the first time drew the attention of this country to the question of the localization of our forces in peace time, and to the means of mobilizing them with rapidity when war was anticipated; and accordingly, in 1874, a plan for the localization of the forces was worked out and adopted, followed shortly afterwards by one for the mobilization of the Army."
    That was in 1870. The Memorandum goes on to say, a little further on—
    "This scheme of mobilization was very carefully devised; but it had the serious defect of aiming too high. It assumed, as its starting
    94
    point, that the whole of the Militia, as well as the Regular Army, was available for mobilization; and it passed over the fact that the strength of our Cavalry, Artillery, and the other branches of the Service, was much below what it should have been, to correspond to the strength of our Infantry…. The result was that the mobilization scheme of 1875 never had more than a paper existence."
    Here we are in 1887, and we are engaged in organizing now. Have we had no organization at all—have we only had an apparent organization, but no more real organization than we had in 1875—namely, a paper organization? We have a Secretary of State for War, a Commander-in-Chief, an Adjutant General, and a Quartermaster General; but in the years which have elapsed since 1875 we have had some five or six different Secretaries of State. Whether that is to the advantage of the Department I do not presume to say; but I do say this—that if any business in the commercial world was conducted on War Office principles, it would be in bankruptcy before many years were over. You are constantly saying in this House that you are anxious to cut down the Army expense. I am for nothing of the kind; but I am for efficiency; and every military man in the House of Commons will tell you that the country has not secured efficiency. I was glad when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer resigned, because I thought there would, at least, be a chance of drawing attention to the vast amount of money which is expended, and the very little which the Government gets for it. The noble Lord was not in favour of reducing the number of men; but of what I and other military men in this House wish—namely, that the money voted for the Army should be judiciously expended. If we possessed a proper system, the money would go a longer way; but under the existing want of system it will do nothing of the kind. You ought to have gone much further than you have done, and made many changes which you have not made. We soldiers feel that it is undesirable to have a civilian at the head of the Army, who, in the first place, can have no military knowledge, and who, if he had, would be unable to bring his knowledge to bear owing to the short time he remains in the Office. His time is occupied in learning his business, and in doing

    95
    what he is told to do by his military advisers, and ever since 1870 we have had the same set of military advisers. The changes which have been made since have been altogether insufficient. Many of the Orders issued in recent years have been simply to put you "as you were." In ringing the changes between long and short service, I cannot but think the interests of the Army have suffered. The first thing we have to do is to see that the regiments, as they are now constituted, are properly organized and renumbered. At the present moment, there is a difficulty in getting the recruits required, and the reason is that you do not holdout sufficient temptations to induce young men to enter the Army. I should like to see more commissions given to men from the ranks, the position of the quartermasters improved, the uniforms simplified and cheapened, the officers' quarters furnished. Under the existing system, the Secretary of State for War, at the end of two or three years, is changed, and this is the real cause of much of the evil complained of. There are 30 or 40 things which require to be done; but as soon as some of them are done, a new Secretary of State is appointed, who undoes everything, and makes further changes. That, I say, is at the bottom of the whole thing. If the Secretary of State were to remain in Office for a considerable length of time, his views would become matured, and he would be able to introduce the changes which are necessary. In Dublin, you have a special command; in Scotland, you have none; and the consequence is that the Dublin staff are all tumbling over one another. To render the Army efficient a great number of things require to be gone into. For 16 years we have been doing nothing, and now, in the next six months, we hope to do all that we ought to have done in the last 16 years. I will not take up more of the time of the Committee; but I trust that the Committee will see that military men are desirous, not only of securing the efficiency of the Army, but of saving the money of the taxpayers.
    GENERAL FRASER: I will only take up the time of the Committee for a few minutes in asking permission to bring to the notice of the Committee a question of national im-
    96
    portance—namely, the proposed reduction of Horse Artillery. The nation is led to believe that there are to be sufficient Horse Artillery batteries ready for the Army Corps to take the field; it should know that the nine attenuated batteries on peace strength when concentrated could only form sufficient for one Army Corps, leaving the other Army Corps with only 423 men and nine horses, and a deficiency of 277 men and 643 horses; and, further, that these batteries of one Army Corps will be in the air, without any substantial source from which to replenish. The reasons given for these reductions are various, and appear to be irreconcilable, and suggest "confusion worse confounded." Against these reductions proofs unanswered and unanswerable have been put forward. The Secretary of State for State for War has announced at different times that the object of the Government is "no longer to have too large a force of attenuated batteries, but to make those the country has effective and available for service;" yet, in answer to a Question, he stated that the batteries retained would be kept at attenuated peace strength. Further, the Secretary of State for War has announced that the first object in the reduction is to increase the number of Field Artillery guns, in which this country is specially deficient. Yet he also states, that by the reduction he creates an ammunition column, of which we are totally deficient. He has also said—"I must honestly say I should be very glad to have more field batteries;" yet, he declares that 14 batteries of Field Artillery—namely, 84 guns—are to be kept up in the time of peace, to be disarmed, broken up, and made into ammunition columns in time of war. Therefore, the scheme comes to this, that four batteries of Horse Artillery are to be used at once for "the provision of transport," and 14 field batteries are to be swept away for the same purpose in the event of war. The Secretary of State for War allows, with reference to a speech of the Adjutant General, that it will require 3,702 horses above the number estimated for this year to place the Royal Artillery and their ammunition columns for the two Army Corps on war strength. The Secretary of State for War has spoken of "the perplexity of the situation" with regard to the horse supply, and the

    97
    especial difficulty with regard to Horse Artillery, and he used these words—
    "I say there are no horses available in the country to man these Horse Artillery batteries in any short time, and to make them fit for active service."
    His admission that the horse difficulty "engages his earnest attention, "certainly gives the strongest reason against transferring to transport work these grand Horse Artillery horses, for which very inferior horses can any day be obtained. Every man interested in horses throughout the Kingdom knows that condition is everything. It was my duty, in 1882, to purchase several hundred horses. Artillery horses at £55 were difficult to obtain, and they were quite unfit, from want of condition, to go on service. With regard to the Horse Artillery men to fill up and to supply the vacancies caused by casualties, they are to be found in the highways and the bye ways from the Reserve. Many men have taken to tramping, and have not been mustered or medically inspected for years, and have lost the Horse Artilleryman's art. There is no other resource. Without the reduction we have not one man or one horse too many. It is a fact that within the last few days batteries in the ordinary course of relief from one station to another in this country have been obliged to borrow horses to move the guns. The question is—How can the batteries be raised to war strength? The answer must be, either by drawing on other batteries in reserve, such as the four doomed batteries, still within call, or else from a large Horse Artillery Depot, for the two Army Corps, which condition, an excellent authority states, was the recommendation of the Committee. Of this we now hear nothing. There is no reserve whatever of horses, and yet no battery could be safely sent into the field with some 70 horses now to their work; one inefficient horse may mean the loss of valuable lives, or of guns. Guns, as the Secretary of State for War remarks, would be useless without ammunition; also, it may be said, ammunition would be useless without guns. The question is—Which is the most easy to improvise, gun batteries or ammunition columns? In his Memorandum on the Estimates the Secretary of State for War shows that there is sufficient Field Artillery for the two
    98
    Army Corps without touching the Horse Artillery, if only provision is made for ammunition columns. Now, 14 effective field batteries are to be turned into ammunition columns in war time, a step equivalent to absolute reduction of them so far as the guns are concerned. The result of this scheme would be, that were the two Army Corps on emergency to be sent abroad, and were an invasion of this country attempted, we may be absolutely denuded of all regular Field Artillery. The Secretary of State for War has stated that it was intended to issue to the Volunteers field guns, which were to compensate for the loss of our guns of Regular Field Artillery. Is it still intended to carry out this part of a scheme? Has any arrangement been made for the instruction of the Volunteers in Artillery riding, driving, &c.? Surely England should maintain a sufficiency of Horse Artillery, on which India, which pays for so many of our batteries, might draw on sudden emergency. If the two Army Corps are raised above paper condition and have to go abroad, England will be left without a man or horse to recruit casualties either for those Army Corps or for India. Is it wise or prudent, at a time when every European power is arming to the teeth, to reduce one of the special branches of the British Army? Considering our responsibilities in the Mediterranean and the East, where Cavalry and Horse Artillery are of vital importance, are we right in reducing an arm which cannot be immediately strengthened or constructed without years of special training? The necessities of India appear to have been ignored—the reliefs even of the batteries there are not taken into account. Field Marshal Lord Napier of Magdala, in "another place," has expressed his opinion that the reduction of our more perfect armament, which has taken a long and careful training to bring to that perfection, is sure to be followed, at no distant time, by increased expenditure, if by no greater evil. It must be borne in mind that, in 1870, the Royal Artillery was decreased by 2,190 officers and men; that very year it was increased by 5,000. In 1881 there was a further reduction of 352 horses and 659 men and 42 guns. In 1882 there was a further reduction of two batteries of Horse Artillery, two of Field Artillery, and also of three Gar-

    99
    rison batteries. "Within the last four years the Indian Government represented that it might be obliged to call on England for a largo number of horse and field batteries, which could not possibly have been supplied without almost denuding the whole of the home batteries. The distinguished General spoken of by the Secretary of State for War as his military adviser, appears to have overlooked the necessity of mobility in Artillery, and to ignore entirely the value of Horse Artillery; if his advice is adhered to, in a very short time in a campaign there would be no Horse Artillery available. His depreciation of the value of the Horse Artillery as being armed with a very poor gun is not applicable, as a large proportion of the Field Artillery are at present also armed with the 9-pounder gun, though we are told these batteries will be armed with a superior gun and the Horse Artillery with "some sort of 10-pounder;" but these equipments are not in existence. He claims that our field batteries are armed with an admirable 13-pounder or the old pattern 16-pounder—a good but unwieldy gun—the fact being that there are only 13 batteries armed with the 13-pounder, and 15 batteries with the 16-pounder. I have received earnest representations from many of our most distinguished officers, who have organized and commanded Armies, protesting against the proposed reduction, and I feel confident that this House and the country in general support their views. We soldiers repudiate the idea just now put forward that there is an agitation on this subject likely to lead to indiscipline; we fully recognize the brilliant deeds and the discipline that have gained for the Royal Artillery a name that no taunt can touch and no disparagement discredit.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I think it will be for the convenience of the House that I should now say a few words in reply to the speeches which have already been made. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) has called attention to the contributions now being made by the Colonies towards the military expenditure of this country, and he named certain Colonies in which he thought the contributions, inadequate as they were, had been reduced. I wish to offer one or two words in answer to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, because I am one of those who, looking
    100
    at the cost of employing Her Majesty's troops for the defence of the Colonies, think that the Colonies themselves ought to be called upon to contribute fairly. First of all, the hon. Gentleman called attention to the case of Honduras.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: To the West Indies.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: Honduras is one of them. In the case of Honduras the troops wore being gradually withdrawn, and, accordingly, Her Majesty's Government had agreed to remit the Honduras contribution of £5,000. Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements and Ceylon have also slightly reduced their contribution; but that has been done at a time when they have been induced to vote an enormous sum for the defence of the coaling stations, or their own defence. Hong Kong has voted over £145,000, Ceylon £45,000, and the Straits Settlements a very large amount, for the purpose of putting Singapore in that position of defence in which we wish to see it. Therefore, I do not think that anyone could say that the Colonies have neglected the responsibility thrown upon them, or have failed in their duty. And now a word or two with respect to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lambeth (General Fraser) who has just sat down. So far from there being any desire, on my part, to make an attack on the Horse Artillery, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I am one of those who joined with him in hearty recognition of the merits of that splendid force. The Horse Artillery has rendered magnificent service to the country, and should the occasion arrive I have no doubt they would render services equally great. Anyone who has seen the admirable pitch of training at which the force has arrived cannot fail to admire it, wherever they see it employed. Therefore, it is in no spirit of hostility to the Royal Horse Artillery that any of the proposed changes will be carried out. I speak as a Secretary of State for War who has only held that position for a few weeks. All that a Secretary of State for War can do, under such circumstances, in regard to any alteration in any part of the Service, is to ask for and receive the opinion of his military advisers, and having weighed their experience and their views they put forward, to arrive at the best conclusion he can form from the expression

    101
    of opinion he receives from them. His duty is to look at the question from the broadest possible point of view. He is bound almost to utilize in full all the resources of the country, and there are two questions he is specially bound to ask himself. The first is whether the stop he is about to take will increase or diminish the defensive or the offensive power of the country; and in this case the evidence before me proves, at any rate, to my satisfaction, that the proposed alteration will increase the defensive power of the country. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), whose speech I may say we were all glad to hear, after his long absence from the House, referred to the Garrison Artillery. Now, I may tell him that during the short time I have been in Office it has been my duty to devote a very large portion of my time to the consideration of that question. There is nothing more important than to maintain the Garrison Artillery in a state of efficiency. I know that up to a certain point the Artillery Volunteers can be relied upon in case of necessity, but that is not sufficient. In the scheme we are laying down we are utilizing to the full the services of the Volunteer Artillery; but it is impossible for them to devote sufficient time to training and the acquisition of that scientific knowledge which would alone enable them altogether to supercede the regular Garrison Artillery in case of invasion. It is, therefore, necessary that there should be a large increase made in our Garrison Artillery Force if we wish to put the defensive Force of the country upon a proper footing. I have put forward, in a Memorandum, which has been circulated to Members of Parliament, a hope that Parliament will be induced to sanction the creation of two new Army Corps of regular troops. Some people say that I am much too sanguine, and that the scheme is far too ambitious; but if that is the argument which is to be put forward it makes our case all the stronger, because, according to the evidence of military experts, when the scheme is carried out the present proposal which has been determined upon will enable us to provide two Army Corps, with an efficient force of Horse and Field Artillery, as well as with an efficient ammunition column which at present does
    102
    not exist. Let me now refer to some of the objections which have been raised. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sussex was the first to refer to the ammunition column, and my hon. and gallant Friend who just sat down has pointed out that it will be weakening the Artillery to turn 14 batteries of Field Artillery into ammuninition columns. I explained the other day that that is what we have already done. As at present we have no ammunition column; if it is necessary to send the Army abroad, we have practically to break up the field batteries. It is now proposed to establish ammunition columns solely for this purpose, that we may be able to send an Army Corps into the field in any sudden emergency without undue delay. If we are to have a little time, and to be supplied with the necessary funds for the purpose, I undertake to say we shall be able to send out an Army Corps, and at the same time to retain field batteries for effective service, either at home or wherever they may be wanted. My hon. and gallant Friend also called attention to the fact that the batteries of the First and Second Army Corps are not fully equipped, either with horses or men; and, he added, that if we were called upon to act in any sudden emergency we should experience great difficulty in fully manning these Corps. I admit that to the fullest extent. I can only say what I have already said, that if Parliament wishes to have these two Army Corps put upon a war footing, it must be prepared to supply the War Office both with men and money. On no other condition should we be able to carry out the work; but I do not think Parliament will refuse when it is asked to supply those means which are not refused in other countries. I may say that the steps we have taken, although they have met with the greatest hostility from my hon. and gallant Friend behind me, will greatly increase the fighting power of the Army, and will enable us to take the steps which have been advocated in this House year after year, but to carry out which nothing has hitherto been done. It is also intended to provide the nucleus of an Army Transport Corps in connection with every regiment in the two Army Corps, that being one of the primest necessities of the Army. All I can say as to the

    103
    Commissariat Department is that it will be carefully inquired into, and I hope and believe that the inquiry will be made in the course of the current year. The object will be totally to re-organize the system so as to make it very much more efficient, from a fighting point of view, than it has ever been before. We hope to take other steps. We believe that even out of the present Estimates we shall be able to do a good deal towards putting the First Army Corps in a state of readiness, so that it may be able to take the field at a moment's notice. It must be remembered that our Army, after all, is a very small one, and that it is the duty of the War Office to so utilize it as to make every man in it of value, and every portion of it applied to the most effective purpose. That is what we really want—namely, to secure that every man in our small Army shall be applied to the most practicable and the most useful purpose possible—that every man shall be acquainted with the particular purpose to which he is to be applied. In carrying out this object, a heavy responsibility lies on the Secretary of State for War; but it is one from which I do not shrink, and one which I will endeavour to discharge to the utmost of my ability. I am quite certain that if any Secretary of State for War, on coming into Office, can satisfy Parliament that his object is to make our small Army useful for all the purposes for which it is intended, he will have no difficulty in inducing Parliament to supply him with the means.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLA.N: May I be permitted to say that I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman very much upon the course he has taken. It is, I believe, the first instance in which the Representatives of this House who are especially interested in military matters have been assembled upstairs in order that the Government might lay their proposals before them. Such a course will, I think, tend to shorten the debate in Committee, and to bring the views of hon. Members best qualified to form an opinion forcibly before the right hon. Gentleman. As far as the reduction of the Royal Horse Artillery is concerned, the essential points of which have been so ably laid before the Committee by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lambeth (General Fraser), I regret that
    104
    the right hon. Gentleman should have announced his final determination to adhere to the decision at which he has already arrived. We had reason to believe that it was still open for consideration, and that, after a discussion here, the War Office might have been induced to come to another decision in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman told us, as we have been told before, that the opinion of his military advisers has strengthened him in making this reduction, although I believe there has been no step which has been more universally condemned by the whole military opinion of the country. But I think the right hon. Gentleman must have been altogether misinformed if he supposes that even at a moment when military officers have felt themselves professionally obliged to condemn the change about to be introduced, they will be induced to turn from the strict path of the lines laid down by military discipline, or to get up anything which may bear the slightest semblance of agitation against the scheme. I am one of those who have taken a humble part in pressing reasons and arguments against any reductions of the Royal Horse Artillery upon the right hon. Gentleman as strongly as possible. I have therefore been brought into contact with other general officers; and, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely misinformed as to their feeling, for I have seen nothing but the strongest indications of dissatisfaction. I am not going to repeat again the arguments which have been so strongly put by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (General Fraser). He has made the question his special study, and I think he has acquitted himself in a way which reflects the utmost credit upon him. I believe that further argument on our side is needless; the question is well understood in the country, and our views have been endorsed by the public Press in every direction; and, therefore, the only persons who remain in favour of the scheme of the War Office are certain unnamed military officers, although who they are I have not been able to make out, after the most minute and careful inquiry. I am in possession of the opinion of all the officials of the Horse Guards and the War Office, although I will not name them or the offices they fill, and with the exception

    105
    of one general officer who is understood to be the originator of the scheme, I have not been able to find a single individual, high or low, who is not prepared to express his strong condemnation of the step the War Office were about to take. The reason why I now speak on this subject is, that when the matter came under discussion half-an-hour ago, I was under the impression that the step had been finally taken, and in that case it would have been unnecessary to make any further allusion to it.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: It has been taken.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: I am extremely sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman confirm my fears upon that point. But even if the decision should be reconsidered, I believe that at the eleventh hour it would not be an easy matter to call these batteries again into immediate existence. I want to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that he is now taking a step in the name of economy which, instead of being economical in its results, will lead, in my opinion, to the moat extravagant and wasteful expenditure that can be devised. Supposing in 12 months it should be necessary to reinstate these batteries, I venture to say that the saving, which the right hon. Gentleman thinks would be effected would be exceeded four times in amount in the attempt to reestablish them, and that they would be re-assembled with a degree of efficiency so minimized that there could be no comparison between it and their present state of efficiency. I repeat that it is the most wasteful and extravagant proceeding I have ever heard of. The right hon. Gentleman tells us he is only following the precedent of foreign armies in preserving the Horse Artillery on a small footing at this time, and reducing the number of guns from six to four. But, in saying that, he is instituting an analogy which is utterly and entirely inapplicable in the case of our Army. In Austria, France, Germany, and Russia there is a well-constituted and efficient system of reserve for horses, extending over all parts of the country, and in the cases of Artillery there are numerous Reserves, amounting to thousands of men, perfectly trained and kept up in their exercises, so that on any emergency, they can be brought in to swell
    106
    the batteries from four to six guns. In our system there is nothing resembling that. To talk of filling up these batteries with our Reserve Artillery men appears simply ridiculous to those who are acquainted with the matter. On going back to civil life, the men lose nearly all their riding and driving, which in the Horse Artillery has been raised to the position of a fine art. Therefore, I say, to talk of analogy in this respect between this and foreign countries, is a thing so ludicrous, that, as I ventured to say before, it approaches to something in the nature of a practical joke. I suppose we must consider that this matter is at an end; but we military Members, who are strongly impressed with the fatal nature of the step that is taken, have discharged our consciences; we have, at all events, the satisfaction of knowing that, with the exception of this shadowy individual, who has been referred to, we carry the whole country with us. Having said that and stated our views, I do not desire to go further in the matter, because I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do not wish to embarrass him in the slightest degree, but, on the contrary, to give him every aid in the task which he has taken upon himself. The right hon. Gentleman already, during the short period he has been engaged at the War Office, has given us the assurance that he will equal, and even exceed the records of many of his Predecessors; and, therefore, it is not with any contentious feeling that I express my regret that he should have been led to take this step. Our protests have been made against a measure which, we are told, it is no longer in our power to reverse, but which we believe to be most mischievous. Having recently returned from abroad, and having had long experience of the military system of every nation of Europe and that of America also, it seems to me that, in view of the possibility of having to make a sudden demand for a large development of our military forces, either for the defence of our Indian possessions, or on account of contingences which might take place in Europe, this is the very worst moment that could have been chosen for taking this step. But I would beg to be allowed to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to that which I conceive to be the next important step to be taken. The hon. and gallant Member for the

    107
    Fareham Division of Hants (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) is the man best qualified to speak on this question, and, therefore, I shall only touch upon it. It is no secret that the condition of our Cavalry, as regards their power of rapid expansion, is unsatisfactory; the officers and men of the force are undoubtedly all that can be desired; but as regards the power of expansion and the supply of horses, it is probably in a lower condition than it has been for years. I have long been the advocate of the foreign system, by which a sufficient supply of horses is obtainable. We have nothing amongst us approaching to that system. It is true that there is a skeleton depot for Cavalry at Canterbury, which, it appears, supplies the demands which arise in our Indian Service; but it is no exaggeration to say that if a sudden demand were made upon us, even such as was made in the Egyptian Campaign of 1882, to say nothing of any European contingency, which would, of course, be a much more serious matter, we could not at the present moment put three complete Cavalry regiments into the field; and to do that, it would be necessary to draw from every Cavalry regiment in the Service, so that you will have nothing approaching a Reserve behind it, I do not want to dilate on this subject longer, because the hon. and gallant Member for the Fareham Division of Hants, who has filled the post of Inspector of Cavalry for years, will deal with it, and I know that when he gets up we shall have a full supply of details. I will, therefore, in conclusion, beg the right ton. Gentleman early and earnestly to direct his attention to this matter. I say this with the desire to aid him in achieving a brilliant success; and I assure him that if he can succeed in putting our Cavalry on a footing of efficiency with the two other arms of the Service, he will have accomplished more in the direction of a most necessary and valuable work of Army reform than has been achieved during many years past.
    SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAM: The question of reduction of the Horse Artillery has been very fully discussed, and I do not propose to deal further with that subject. But I have another subject before me to which I desire to direct the attention of the Committee, and to which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State
    108
    for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) has alluded—namely, the absolute necessity which exists for increasing the number of trained men in garrisons for the service of our largo new guns. That necessity arises from the great weight of modern guns and the machinery connected with them. In the old days, in case of siege, infantry were used for working guns; but that cannot be done at the present time with modern guns under existing circumstances. We have been told that these guns cannot be worked except by thoroughly trained men. My idea is that the Infantry regiments ought to be trained under a full course of instruction in the loading and management of garrison guns. The knowledge of this cannot, of course, be gained on the emergency, for, as the Committee will be aware, it takes a long time to teach men what they have to do. It would take a considerable time to put the men through the course. Now, there are two classes of instruction—first the laboratory course through which gunners have to go, and which can only be gone through at Woolwich. It embraces technical and scientific knowledge. That course I do not think adapted to Infantry regiments. The second class of instruction relates simply to the working of the guns when in position, and that course I believe may be thoroughly learned by Infantry regiments. I do not propose that the whole of the regiment should be taught, because there are in all regiments a number of stupid men who are incapable of being so instructed. There are, however, in all regiments a number of intelligent men fond of machinery; and I think if, say 15 per cent of the regiment were taught, the result would be in every way satisfactory. To effect this, I think three or four months, with two hours instruction a-day, would be necessary. It cannot be expected, however, that men would give up their time without payment, and I think that about 1d. a-day per man would be sufficient. Taking the number of men at 120 per battalion, this would cost, in round numbers, 10s. a-day, which, with a slight extra allowance to non-commissioned officers, would amount to £200 a-year; that sum, multiplied by 100, the number of the battalions, would make £20,000 for the year; and I believe that for this sum, by utilizing your

    109
    Infantry soldiers in the way I have described, the Nation would have the advantage of possessing 10,000 men thoroughly and completely trained in the working of the guns which are now placed in our forts. I am aware that this scheme can only be carried out when these Infantry regiments are in fortified places; but I think, in due time, the whole of our Infantry regiments might pass through the course I have described. In the meantime, I may point out the whole cost of the arrangement would not fall at once upon the Exchequer. It is said, by way of objection to this proposal, in the first place, that the Infantry men would lose their practice when not in forts; but I think that might be avoided by the Secretary of State for War placing one large new gun at the head-quarters of each Infantry regiment. In the next place, it is said that there would not be time, in these days of short service, to put the men through the course; but I know something of the practice in Cavalry regiments, where numbers of the men are spared for various purposes, and I think that if the men of a Cavalry regiment can spare five hours a day in stables, it is only reasonable to believe that an Infantry regiment can spare 15 per cent of the men to be put through the course I have suggested. There is another subject cognate with this to which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has slightly alluded to—namely, the value of Volunteer Artillery. At Portsmouth—and, I presume, also in the neighbourhood of our other fortifications—there are largo and excellent corps of Volunteer Artillery, who only learn and practice with the old smooth-bore 64-pounder. It seems to me utterly absurd that they should be restricted to obsolete guns and obsolete practice when there are in our modern forts new guns, and when there are also Royal Artillery officers in the garrison who are perfectly able and willing to train the men in the use of these weapons. I admit there would be the cost of providing the ammunition for the practice, but that would not amount to a very large sum. Then there is another question connected with the Artillery which I wish to bring before the Committee. The Field Artillery are no doubt a most valuable branch of the Service; but less
    110
    valuable, I believe, than they might be made. In the Field Artillery only a certain proportion of men are taught to ride and drive, whereas it seems to me that every man who joins should be put through a course of instruction in the riding and driving school. It seems to me absurd that, in a corps where there are waggons and horses, and all the means of instruction in these respects, there should be a single man loss useful than he might be. Then there is the question of the Cavalry pioneers. In modern warfare, I believe Cavalry pioneers to be invaluable. The work of pioneering is hazardous, I know, but you will always find men ready for that in every regiment, and it is impossible to see the extent of mischief that may be done to the enemy by these men in the destruction of telegraph wires, railways, engines, bridges, and so on. We all know that, in the present day, wars are carried on at a great distance from the base, and, therefore, offers great fatalities for the destructive operations of well-trained mounted pioneers. At present there are 16 pioneers in every Cavalry regiment; they are sent to Chatham for their training; the men come back well trained, undoubtedly—and I have nothing to say against the system in that respect—but when they return to the regiment they do not practice, and the reason of that is, that they get no extra pay for the work. You cannot get men to go out an hour a-day unless you give them some remuneration. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to take this into consideration—to give 16 men in each regiment 1d. per day, say, in all, 2s. per day, £36 per year per regiment, which for 30 Cavalry regiments would give a cost to the State of £750 a-year. No doubt the Cavalry are very expensive; but it is not worth your while to render them loss effective than they might be if this comparatively small sum of £750 a year were expended upon them. The Army Estimates amount to £18,000,000 a-year, and it seems to me cheeseparing to hesitate to hand over these small sums for the purposes I have described. I know that many in high quarters attach great importance to numbers; but I value more than that the efficiency of each individual man. I say, reduce numbers if you will, but in the name of common

    111
    sense give the money which will make the men you have as thoroughly and practically efficient as they can be. The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Durham (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) has appealed to me to make some observations on the subject of Cavalry reorganization. I dealt with that subject when the House was considering the Army Estimates at an earlier period in the Session, and I will not, therefore, repeat all that I said on that occasion. I believe that a re-organization of our Cavalry is absolutely necessary. All our Cavalry regiments are too weak for the purpose of war; we have far too large a number of units. I agree that the Cavalry regiments ought to consist of five squadrons at least—not the depot squadrons which the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Durham spoke of, as existing at Canterbury, but five effective squadrons, four to go abroad in case of war, and one to be left at home. I know that remarks of this kind are distasteful; but it is our duty to point out to this House and to the Secretary of State for War that this plan is absolutely necessary for the efficiency of the Cavalry branch of the Service, and on the whole the most economical means of effecting improvement. What I ask, with regard to the Cavalry would, I believe, cost nothing to the country; and I believe also that the Indian Government would only be too glad if the Home Government would consent to the increase in the case of the Indian regiments, because they know that regiments of a certain strength are more effective and more economical than weaker regiments. Allusion has been made to the supply of horses which it is said we cannot get. With regard to that matter, the facts are very simple; the breeders will never rear more horses than the trade of the country requires. Horses are unlike boots and shoes, they cannot be kept in stock; and when they are produced they must be sold by the dealer at the price he can get for them. I have myself looked into this matter, and I may mention that the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (The Marquess of Hartington) placed me on a Committee some time ago, and the result of our investigation was to find that the same state of things which exist in England occurs in almost every country in the world—that is to say, there
    112
    is, beyond the actual requirement of the trade of each country, no stock of horses fit for bit or bridle. I believe that something like 5,000 horses might be got in this country without much trouble; but when you have taken up the whole number in the hands of the dealers you would not be able to get the number which would be required in case of war. In the course of my inquiry, I was informed by the managers of the London General Omnibus Company that nothing would induce them to part with more than two per cent of their stock of horses. In short, I am of opinion that nothing you can do will create a supply of horses in excess of the number which the trade of the country will support. The Committee will remember that some time ago a Commission went to Canada for the purpose of ascertaining what horses could be obtained there; they went to Canada, as I have said, and they brought back 73 horses. When the Commission returned, I asked one of the members if he could get 1,000 horses in Canada. He said that he could not. I then asked him if he could get 500, and I think his reply was that he might got about that number. I must confess that the result of my inquiries is that in case of a great European war, I believe we should have the greatest possible difficulty either in mounting the Cavalry, or in getting the necessary draft horses for the Royal Artillery, Engineers, and Transport Corps. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has conceded a certain amount of Transport to Infantry regiments, and I look upon that as one of the best steps taken for many years. When the Egyptian War broke out, Infantry men were sent down to Aldershot for three days training in the art of saddling and tending horses; but, of course, when they landed in Egypt they were found to be so totally ignorant of the duties required of them that the transport broke down. Finally, I am glad to hear that there is to be a certain number of mules kept in stock. These are very useful animals, but somewhat difficult to manage. It might be well that some provision should be made in respect of camels, having regard to the enormous loss of these animals which occurred in Egypt—but that, of course, would be impossible in this country.
    COLONEL EYRE: With the indulgence of the Committee, I wish to make some observations on the subject of the Horse Artillery. In doing so, I feel that I shall be not only acting fairly to my constituents, but to a great many of my brother officers outside the House. Not having been an Artilleryman myself, I shall not enter into any details; but I may, perhaps, be allowed to express an opinion on the subject generally, which I think will be a correct one, having served with the Rifle Brigade throughout the Indian Mutiny. In the first place, I will give, not my own, but the opinions of high authorities with regard to the value of Artillery in Asiatic warfare. Sir Colin Campbell—afterwards Lord Clyde—took care that, as far as lay in his power, to every column which was formed there should be attached a body of Horse Artillery; and so important did he regard this, that he gave directions to every column that whenever they attacked any fortified place they should first bring Artillery to bear upon it. Passing from the opinion of Lord Clyde on this matter, I will quote from some correspondence and papers relating to the East India Horse Artillery during the time of the Indian Mutiny—in the years 1857 and 1859—when a great change had to be carried out with regard to that branch of the Service. Military letter from the Court of Directors to the Secretary of State for India, No. 123, dated July, 1857, has this passage—
    "As no doubt whatever can be entertained of the necessity for an augmentation of this important arm of the Service, we are of opinion that no time should he lost in collecting the means for rendering it effective at the earliest possible period."
    I will now read an extract from a Minute of the Governor General of India (Lord Canning), dated 9th of August, 1858, which says—
    "I do not believe that any reduction worth counting can safely be made. With every allowance for the greater trustworthiness and, in some respects, greater efficiency of European Artillery, the ground which has to be covered is the same—I see no hope of a diminution of the aggregate Force."
    Another good authority—Brigadier General Jacob—said—"The strength of the Artillery should be increased," Sir J. L. Lawrence also said—
    114
    "The value of Artillery is, perhaps, greate in Asia than in any other part of the world. Guns are objects of intense fear to the Natives of India. A small European Force with a powerful Artillery would be irresistible."
    This Minute of the Governor General of India is dated the 24th of August, 1858. Another Minute says that—"At the end of a march the active exertions of Artillery are needed;" and I am in a position to boar that out from my own experience, because at the end of a long march it is impossible for the troops to move, and it is necessary that you should be able to send off at once some guns to the spot where they are required. Another Despatch of the Military Department, No. 644, says—
    "The Government in Council instructs mo to recommend earnestly that the subject of the total inadequacy of the strength of the Artillery may receive the serious consideration of the Governor General of India."
    The date of that is the 26th of February, 1857. Then we have a letter from the Adjutant General of the Army to the Government Secretary to this effect—
    "I am directed to state that the Commander-in-Chief cannot too earnestly press upon the attention of the Government a third time the subject regarding the total inadequacy of the strength of the Corps of Artillery."
    That is dated the 14th day of February, 1857. Again, Despatch No. 804, dated the 10th of March, 1857, from the Secretary to the Governor of Madras to the Governor General of India, says—
    "I am directed to forward you a letter from the Quartermaster General of the Madras Army urging the necessity for an increase in this branch."
    Then there are in a Memorandum by General Beresford, dated the 29th of August, 1857, these words—
    "I would urge that no consideration of expense should in any way be allowed to interfere with efficiency in so vital an arm as the Artillery."
    And, finally, the Commander-in-Chief in India referred, in a Minute of the 19th of August, 1857, to the hesitation to increase the Artillery as "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel." I think I have brought forward enough statements on the part of those in authority to show how important and how valuable the Artillery was considered to be in Asiatic warfare. If there should be war again, the probability is that it will arise in some part of Asia, and therefore I venture to say that we

    115
    should not have decrease in the number of our Artillery, but rather that there should be an increase. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has, in the course of his remarks, expressed the hope that if any Member of the Committee had in his mind any ideas that would tend in the direction of economy, they would be stated. I wish to call attention to one point on which I think that economy can be effected, and I refer to those expensive luxuries, Brigade Depôts, in connection with which I believe that a stroke of the pen would have the effect of saving a considerable sum of money. I think, then, that each brigadier should be responsible for everything which goes on in his brigade, and cease to be what he undoubtedly is now—a nonentity. I will give an instance or two of what is continually occurring. A short time ago my servant had occasion to ride a short distance to the Brigade Depot in Derby to ask for a military surgeon to be sent to an ambulance corps which I have; he received a letter saying- that my letter would be forwarded to York, and after considerable delay it arrived at last at the proper place. I say that all this is absolute waste of time, and I cannot see why the brigadier should not have sent the surgeon to the barracks on his own authority. In another case, the adjutant wrote to the Brigade Depôt at no great distance to ask for a surgeon to come and examine an animal that was sore. The letter went from the adjutant to the Major General commanding the division at York; from him it went back to the Brigadier, from him to the adjutant of the Volunteer regiment, asking him to fix a day. When this was done, it went again to Derby, and the result was that, instead of a surgeon being sent from Derby, the county had to pay for a surgeon coming all the way from Birmingham. I suggest that, instead of economizing by cutting down the strength of the Artillery, we should begin by making necessary reforms in such matters as I have referred to. I earnestly trust the right hon. Gentleman will give his attention to these points, and I shall be most happy to assist him in case of need with the statistics and correspondence with which, as commanding officer, I am flooded.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to point out, with regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope), that the increase in the number of Garrison Artillery is only an increase in the Reserve, which is an extremely different thing from an increase in the strength of the effective. The hon. and gallant Baronet who represents the Fareham Division of Hants (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram), like the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, also dwelt on the necessity of increasing the number of Garrison guns, and of having a sufficient number of well-trained men to work them. The hon. and gallant Baronet proposed that a certain number of Infantry men should be instructed in the management of garrison guns. That proposal appears to mo a strange one, because, from what I have seen of Infantry soldiers, I venture to think that they are not the class of men who are best fitted for work of that kind. I suggest that you will get a sufficient number of men to work the guns in this way—that you should have a separate class of men in the Garrison Artillery, amounting to, say, one-third of the total number, who should bear the same relation to ordinary gunners as the A. B. s bear to ordinary seamen. Now, the only way that you can secure that is by giving a certain number of the men a higher rate of pay when they show proficiency in the management of the complicated machinery connected with some of the new guns, such as hydraulic buffers and the various moving gear, all of which complicated machinery requires for its handling skilled workmen, and not ordinary soldiers. I think some recognition of this fact ought to take place, and that an efficient body of Garrison gunners should be established, which, in my opinion, could be obtained, as I have said, by the increase of pay. This matter, which is one of great importance, I think, is well worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who, I am glad to see, is alive to the importance of improving the Garrison Artillery. I do not state this on my own opinion alone, but from my knowledge that the plan is one which commends itself to a large number of Artil-

    117
    lery officers. The right hon. Gentleman stated that a certain number of our batteries of Artillery ought to be kept on a peace footing; and there I agree with him, because I could never understand why this country should be the only one which keeps its Artillery on a war footing. No doubt, it would, from an effective point point of view, be better that the Force should be kept on a war footing; but the question is whether it would be worth the money you would have to pay for it. Therefore, although the proposal of the right hem. Gentleman is one which would not commend itself as a general rule to Army men in this House, yet, I think, he is quite right in saying that the whole of our Artillery ought not to be kept on a war footing. I must say that, in my opinion, the Secretary of State for War is making a great blunder in the matter of the Horse Artillery. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that it was his duty in this matter to choose his advisors—and I have no doubt that he endeavours to obtain the best advice possible in matters relating to his Department—but on this occasion I do not think he has been well advised, nor do I think that the country will be satisfied with a Minister of War who relies upon technical advice only. The country wants a little more than that; and they will hold him responsible, notwithstanding the trouble he takes to get the best advice, if mistakes are made. I think I can see the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has gone wrong in connection with this subject. There is a new plan in the heads of the War Office Authorities. It is to have the Corps modelled on the Continental system—to have two Corps d'Armée. The new idea is to have 70,000 men ready to be sent away at a few days' notice. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman seems to paint to the reduction of our military strength for the purpose of making these Corps d'Armée perfectly efficient. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that military advisers are often very unsafe guides. They will try to make the Army efficient, no doubt; but then they have very little idea of the cost which is involved; and although I do not believe that the country would care about the ultimate cost, provided that efficiency were obtained, yet the advice which has the effect of placing a large additional
    118
    sum upon the military vote is not likely to be held in high estimation by the Minister of War. I believe that if you have two efficient Corps d'Armée only the people will cry out that 70,000 are too few, and that you will have to establish a third Corps d'Armée.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: It is not proposed to reduce the strength of the Army outside the two Army Corps of the Reserve in any case.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has given that explanation, because it shows how very important it is that our Army should not be reduced to two Corps d'Armée. I point out, however, that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the first step in this direction; he has struck at one arm of the Service, although he has not more Horse Artillery than is sufficient for two Corps d'Armée, and his proposed reduction will have to be joined with reductions in other arms, and the Cavalry, for instance, may have to be reduced. You are, at all events, striking at the very arm which it takes longest to create; and which, on an emergency, it will be impossible to improvise. It is not an easy matter to produce Garrison Artillery, but it takes months and years to produce efficient Horse Artillery. I think that this plan ought to be very carefully considered by the public. The Corps will, no doubt, be very good and efficient in the main, and they are sure to be excellent on Paper; but if you are going to have them at the expense of the Military Establishments of the country, I think you are buying them too dearly. The fact that these Corps are to be ready at a moment's notice shows that you are keeping up your Army for offensive purposes. But suppose that your two Corps d'Armée were sent abroad, and that they surrendered, you will have no Horse Artillery at homo, and in that respect you will be at a great disadvantage. Anyone can see that it is a very rash thing to destroy that which has been created at great expense, and which it takes a long time to replace. It is an easy thing to cut down the tree which is many years in growing. What the Government are doing suggests something very like the act of a man who, having furnished his house at great cost, breaks up expensive chairs and tables for use as firewood. But what is to be done with the men of the batteries?

    119
    Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to turn them into Garrison Artillerymen? Probably they will gradually be brought back when they have lost some of their efficiency and smartness. On the whole, I think the right hon. Gentleman has been led into taking a step which, besides doing a considerable amount of injury directly and indirectly by unsettling men's minds, will prove in the end to be a very costly one. There is another subject which has not been referred to except by the hon. and gallant Member for the Fareham Division of Hants, and on which I wish to make a few remarks. I refer to the expedition to Canada for the purpose of buying horses. That is a step on which I think the opinion of the Committee ought to be taken, because anything more contrary to military and political economy I cannot conceive. You go 2,000 miles to try to open up a new supply of horses, a new market as you say, but nothing can be more unfair to the people of this country. Instead of trying to open a new market in Canada, you should increase your price and then—although you might not get what you wanted in the first—you, in a year or two—you would be able to get plenty of horses. These horses from Canada cannot be landed here at a less cost than £60 or £70 each. It has always been the theory that a country in time of peace should get as many horses as possible from internal sources, although in time of war the more horses bought in foreign markets the better, because you prevent the enemy getting them. I think the mission to Canada was a most ill-judged measure, and I should be glad if some hon. Member would move a reduction of this Vote as a protest against what I consider a most unfair proceeding towards the horse breeders in the country.
    SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAM: The object of the Commission sent to Canada was to test the market in case horses should be scarce here, and to get a small number of horses sent over for the purpose of seeing whether or not they were suitable for military service.
    MR. TOTTENHAM: I shall not trouble the Committee with a repetition of the figures and arguments that have been used against the reduction of the Horse Artillery; I shall say nothing further than that I agree with
    120
    all that has fallen from previous speakers on the subject, and express a hope that the country will not have cause to regret a step which I believe is fatal to the efficiency of the Horse Artillery as an arm of the Service and detrimental to the interests of the country. We have had the cases of two classes of officers brought before the Committee by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, that is to say of the paymasters and quartermasters. I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) express his opinion that there is justice in the case of the paymasters, and that in all probability their grievance will be removed. I should have been more glad to hear that the quartermasters would be given something more than honorary rank, and that the concession would have been more of a financial character; and that, I think, is the point of view from which the quartermasters themselves will look at the matter. But the class whose claims I wish to bring before the Committee is that of the present commanding officers of regiments and battalions. Within the year 1886–7 there will have been no less than 107 of these officers relegated to half-pay, and of these six will have been in command for little more than a-year, 87 between one and two years, and 14 between two and three years. Previous to 1871, the period of command was practically unlimited. From 1871 to 1881 the period of command was fixed at five years, from 1881 to 1886 the period was fixed at four years, and it was also provided by the same Royal Warrant that, after having served five years as a lieutenant colonel, whether second or first in command, the officer should be placed on half-pay. Now, a new Royal Warrant has been issued within the last few months, by which it is enacted that in future an officer shall command his regiment for four years, no matter for what length of time he may be second in command. This is a sensible and reasonable arrangement; but because that arrangement has been made in the case of future commanding officers there appears to be no reason why officers, who are now commanding regiments, should be relegated to half-pay, and practically put on the shelf for the rest of their military lives any more than those who are to have command for four years in future. It has been said

    121
    that one reason for doing this is that it is hard, or would be hard, upon those who have to succeed to the command; but I maintain that it is no harder upon them now than it was previously to 1881, and that officers would actually succeed now to the command of their regiments in a shorter time than they would previously to 1881. Just as an instance of the hardship that has been done certain officers, let me name one or two out of the long list of cases which has been prepared by officers who are interested in this matter. I take the case of the officer commanding the present 10th Hussars: he was 25 years in the Service before he got command of his regiment; he was five years second in command, and under the existing regulations, under the Royal Warrant of 1881, he lost his command after he had been one year and five months in possession of it. Then I take the case of the officer commanding the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry: he was 29 years in the Service before he got command; he was five years second in command, and he will have been but one year in command of his regiment when he has to retire on half-pay. The whole 107 I have mentioned are similar to these, varying only in degree. Now, I say it is hard upon these officers that they should lose what all officers look forward to as the reward of their exertions—namely, the command of their regiment. It is no argument to say they have been second lieutenant-colonels, or second in command. Everyone who is acquainted with military life knows that the second in command is only the second fiddle, that he has no status at all in fact, that he hardly considers himself in the position of second lieutenant-colonel, and that often he is very much better off without the rank, and very much in the way. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will be able to tell us that the position of these officers will be reconsidered by him. These officers have been selected for the command of their regiment as efficient and properly qualified officers, and there seems to be no reason whatever why they should be punished for the benefit of those who have to succeed, if really it is for their benefit. I hope before this Vote is taken that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurances that this matter will receive
    122
    his consideration. There is one other point I should like to lay before the Committee, and that is in reference to the Question which was asked by myself of the Secretary of State for War within the last few days—namely, the strength or establishment of the two Army Corps which are about to be formed. We were informed by the right hon. Gentleman that he was about to lay a Paper upon the subject on the Table of the House; but I very much fear from the Answer to another Question in regard to the strength of the batteries which are to remain in the Horse Artillery, that the establishment of these Army Corps is to be a peace establishment. If that is so, it is simply continuing the present childish system of skeleton regiments at home. It cannot be anything else. The regiments will be actually incapable and inefficient to take the field. If we want any instance of the condition in which our regiments are when suddenly called upon for service, we have only to recollect the state in which they were in at the time of the outbreak of the Egyptian War. Two Cavalry regiments had to be entirely broken up to form two squadrons for the Egyptian War. We have the case of other regiments which were sent during the same period to the Mediterranean, one half of them never having gone through a course of musketry, and more than half in some cases being under one year's service. I hope that will not be the state in which these two Army Corps are to be left. I trust my right hon. Friend will be able to assure us that the regiments which are to form the two Army Corps will, at all events, be kept at proper strength and in thoroughly efficient condition.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): There are just one or two matters to which I should like to refer at once. In the first place, let me say a word with regard to the question of the horse supply to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Durham (Sir Henry Havelock Allan) called attention. Although an experiment was made with regard to Canada by sending out an officer to see what amount of horse supply could be reckoned upon from that country, it is felt that the proper course for the War Office to adopt is to rely upon the home

    123
    supply of horses, and not on any supply from foreign countries or even from our Colonies. I do not yet know what the result of the Canadian experiment will be; but when we receive a full Report, I want to make out in the fairest possible way the cost per horse. Then there are two subjects which my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Tottenham) has mentioned. The first is in regard to the position of the Army Corps. I am afraid I must ask him to restrain still further his natural impatience. I hope to present in a very short time full details of the composition of the two Army Corps. I am going through the matter myself at the present time, and I hope shortly to be able to lay before the House full details as to how the Army Corps are to be composed, so that the House and the country can judge for themselves how far it is likely that with a little more time given to us we can put the scheme into thoroughly practical effect.
    MR. TOTTENHAM: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I merely asked whether the two Army Corps were to be kept at a peace or war establishment.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: If I wanted to go into that subject, I should have to go into it at great length indeed. Then, my hon. Friend called attention to the question of retirement of commanding officers of regiments. I confess I have seen cases myself where very excellent officers, officers whoso services the country ought to be sorry to lose, have, by the operation of this scheme, been compelled to retire from the command of regiments. I have been very sorry for them indeed; but, as my hon. Friend knows, the whole of this matter was thoroughly considered before the late Royal Warrant was issued. Those who were concerned in the framing of the Royal Warrant considered it in all its bearings, and they came to the conclusion that, on the whole, the rule laid down must be insisted upon. I am afraid someone or other must suffer. If you were to extend the terms of employment of lieutenant colonels, then majors must retire, and certainly I should be very sorry to see any further punishment inflicted upon majors. I have not yet had very much opportunity of looking into the matter; but I mean to do so, and if I find I can do anything to meet the
    124
    views of my hon. Friend, I shall be only too glad to do it.
    MR. MOLLOY: Mr. Courtney, nothing strikes one more in these discussions upon naval and military matters than the utter hollowness of the debates. A Minister, advised by no one knows whom, certainly by no military authority, takes a step which is of the most vital importance, comes down to the House without asking for an opportunity of taking the House into his counsel in regard to this step, and then thinks that if some hon. Members get up and grumble for five or ten minutes, that is all that is necessary. I entirely disagree with such a method of carrying on debates upon such serious subjects. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Durham (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan), towards the close of his remarks, asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) if the reduction of the Horse Artillery had been finally decided upon, and the right hon. Gentleman with great alacrity jumped up and said—"Yes, finally decided." Thereupon the hon. and gallant Gentleman said—"If that is so, it is not much use our discussing the matter." I am astonished at him, because if there is anything that the whole military opinion of this House, the whole military opinion of this country, is entirely opposed to, it is to the action which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has taken in regard to the Horse Artillery. It depends entirely upon the military Members of this House whether the Horse Artillery shall be reduced or not. Of course, if hon. and gallant Gentlemen come down here and think they have done their duty sufficiently in grumbling at what has been done, and declining to take any action which will give public expression to their opinions, they have no one to blame but themselves. I have taken some interest in this question of the reduction of the Horse Artillery, and I have come to this conclusion, that of all the unpatriotic actions that have ever been perpetrated by any Government this is the most unpatriotic. I do not at all wish it for one moment to be understood that I mean to say that it is the desire of the Government to be unpatriotic; but that, as far as its effects go, this stop is the most unpatriotic act that

    125
    has ever been committed by a Government in Army matters. Now, Sir, the English Army of all the Armies in Europe is the one that ought to have not only its full, but the fullest measure of Horse Artillery. Whenever you have a small Army like the English Army, which may at any moment be called upon to face some Continental Army, you are absolutely at a discount if you have not got your full measure of Horse Artillery, and more than your full measure. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) mentioned, in speaking of the Field Artillery, that during the Franco-German War the French were able to get together some good Field Artillery in three months. I served in that unfortunate war, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that he is entirely mistaken. Even after three or four months training our Field Artillery was not worth a straw. I will go further, and say that the greatest loss and difficulty which we experienced during the whole of that war was caused by the want of Horse Artillery. I will not detain the Committee by giving them examples, but I could give them examples by the score of our formations being peppered, our ranks broken, and every movement we had intended to take obstructed, owing to the rapidity and accuracy of the fire of the German Horse Artillery. Our want of Horse Artillery was felt during the whole war, but especially in the latter end. Men who had had long experience in military matters, my own chief, for instance, often said to me, in the course of our conversations, it was almost impossible to do anything owing to the want of Horse Artillery. Now, in the English Army you want, above all things, Horse Artillery; and. for the life of me, I cannot understand what object the Government can have in taking a step so fatal to the interests of this country as the reduction of the Horse Artillery. If it is a question of economy, how much will you save—do you save anything that is worth thinking about? As I understand, the total saving will be something like £4,000 or £5,000 per annum, and for this miser-able bit of childish economy you are going to destroy a portion of your Force, which it will take you two or three years to replace. If you are ever engaged in an European war, you will assuredly find it necessary to replace these men;
    126
    but that to do so will take you a very considerable time, at least two years. You will find that you have reduced this arm of the Service at a loss of life and loss of prestige in the earlier part of that war, for which nothing will ever repay you. Now, upon the question of economy, are there not plenty of Departments in which you could effect economy infinitely greater than this, and without in the least endangering the interest of your Service? If anyone had the time and the inclination to devote a week's study to the Estimates, they would find means of making reductions which would simply be appalling, and in the face of which this economy is a myth. Take the case of the Civil Service. I have it upon the authority of one who knows perhaps as well as any man connected with the Civil Service of this country what economies may be made without in the least injuring the Service, that if economies which should and ought to be made were made, the Government would be able to take off 1d. of the Income Tax. What is true in regard to the Civil Service is equally true in regard to the Naval Service, and especially in regard to the Army Service. I grant it is a good thing to have two Army Corps; I think it would be a good think if you had troops ready; I know that during the late Egyptian War your highest authority in this country said that if he were called upon to send another regiment to Egypt, he could not do so. So far as your Army Corps go, I am entirely with you; but I ask most seriously what is the object of reducing the Horse Artillery? You are going to turn them into Field Artillery; in two years time they will not be worth a straw for the purpose of Horse Artillery, Now, I do not believe that any step that any Government has ever taken cannot be retraced. I believe that if the military men will only take a firm stand in the matter, this Horse Artillery will be replaced in six months. The only way to give effect to the opinion of this House is to take a Division, and for that reason I propose, as a practical protest against this fatal step, that this Vote be reduced by the sum of £5,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed "That a sum, not exceeding £2,993,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Molloy.)
    MR. MALLOCK: Though I regret very much the decision the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) has thought it his duty to come to with respect to the Horse Artillery, I congratulate him on his determination to strengthen the Garrison Artillery. That branch of the Artillery is a very valuable Service, and it has not generally received the recognition that is due to it. I wish now especially to refer to the Volunteer batteries of Garrison Artillery—I do not believe they are receiving the training they ought to receive. This subject is of great interest to many of my constituents, and, having served in the Royal Artillery myself for 11 or 12 years, and for a greater part of that time in the Garrison Artillery, it is a subject in which I take very great interest. I believe that if the Volunteer Artillery were called upon for active service they would be required to garrison such places as Plymouth, Dover, and Portsmouth. Therefore, one would suppose that their training in time of peace would consist in working those guns which they would have to work in time of war. But what, Sir, is the fact? There are a great many Volunteer Artillery batteries who never see any gun larger than an old 32-pounder smoothbore, or a 64-pounder rifle gun. The training they get at these guns is no use whatever in working the heavier guns they would have to man in case they garrisoned these forts. It is true that a small percentage of every Garrison battery is sent annually into some of these forts; and I believe, too—at least it ought to be the case—that those Volunteer batteries who are fortunate enough to be situated within easy distance of forts where heavy guns are mounted have opportunities of working at these guns. But there are numbers of batteries who never have any chance whatever of learning their drill at the heavy guns—at the 12-tons, 18-tons, and still heavier guns, which are mounted at these forts. No doubt, to give all Volunteer Artillery the extra training I desire to see them have would entail some extra expense; but when I remember the vast sums that have been spent on our fortifications and our armaments, I think we ought not to begrudge the alight extra expenditure which would be involved in instructing these men in
    128
    the duties they would have to perform if they had to take charge of these forts and the guns in them. I believe the requisite training might be given to them in one or two ways. Some 12 or 18-ton guns might be mounted somewhere within easy distance of two or three Volunteer batteries, so that they might have a chance of being able to drill with such guns; or a much larger percentage—say, 50 per cent—of our Volunteer Artillery might be sent into the forts yearly to learn their duty with these guns; or, it would be better still, if the whole of the batteries could be sent even once in two years. I believe the best policy would be that nearly all the Volunteers—at all events, the bulk of those who are close to any of these large towns where forts are situated—should be Artillery as far as possible; certainly every encouragement should be held out to Volunteers in the neighbourhood of seaports to become Artillery Volunteer Corps. A rifleman can have his weapon anywhere, and he can find drill grounds at any place; but an artilleryman's gun cannot be brought to him, therefore it necessary he should be taken to the gun. Unless he has sufficient opportunities of drilling with heavy guns he can never become a valuable soldier. It is not only with the object of learning his drill with heavy guns that he should be sent to these places, but also that he should learn the ins and-outs of the various forts, that he should be acquainted with all the arrangements of magazines, and stores, and lifts, and the thousand and one other arrangements which are necessary for the effective service of the heavy ordnance in these forts. This subject may not be a very interesting one, but I believe it is one well worth the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and I am sure that the more opportunities the men of the Volunteer Garrison Artillery have of perfecting themselves in their drill and duties the more popular that branch of the Service will become.
    COLONEL BLUNDELL: Mr. Courtney, I am anxious to say a word upon one point which has not been touched upon up to this, but which I believe to be equal in importance to anything that has been mentioned, and that is the reduction of the home battalions of Infantry. Those

    129
    Gentlemen of the Committee who are not connected with the Service must understand that, after all, the Infantry bears the same relation to the other arms of the Service that the joint bears to the other dishes of a dinner, that the Infantry is the main stay. Now, the home battalions of Infantry have been reduced to 730 men; before Lord Airlie's Committee evidence was given which showed that when a battalion was sent on service one-fourth of the men wore found to be, from various causes, unfit for active service, that reduces the 730 men to 548. To complete the war strength of a battalion you have to put in 252 fresh men. Well, now, that means that the new comers are nearly half, at any rate, a good many more than one-third, of the men left in the battalion, a very serious matter indeed. And, when the Committee understands that, at the present time, according to the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting, there are 350 men in each Regiment of only one year's service, they will see that, if the home battalions are reduced much more they will be very inefficient to go on service. When once the Secretary of State for War begins nibbling at the battalions, there is a great danger that the 30 men who are above the 700 will be cut off the next year. I strongly urge upon the right hon. Gentleman not to do that on any account. The Infantry, after all, is the most important body to us in our Army. It is true that our battalions have too many young soldiers in them, and it would be very desirable if men in the Reserve, as has been suggested, were allowed to re-enlist. But if they do so, in my opinion, they should be placed under an enforced stoppage of pay, in order to provide their own retirement allowance. I believe we are fast approaching the time when every Government official, from the Prime Minister down to the policeman and the postman, must be subjected to a compulsory stoppage for retirement allowances, or else that the charge should be made en bloc against the accounts of the year, for the amount thrown upon futurity in the shape of pensions discounted is becoming something terrible to contemplate. Now, in regard to the Artillery question. The Horse Artillery batteries are really wanted as reserves for India, and it would be far better to keep them, even if they had to
    130
    be dismounted in turn, than to disband thorn. I doubt very much the necessity for the proposed great increase of the Garrison Artillery. This country, hitherto, has always found that a good thrust is the best parry, and though it is very necessary that our coaling stations should be fortified, and that our ports should be fortified, I believe that the defence of these places may be loft, to a very much greater extent than is supposed, to our Auxiliary Forces. I think the Secretary of State for War would do a great ser-vice if be induced Volunteer battalions in the neighbourhood of our forts and ports to be converted into Artillery. I will not detain the Committee longer; but I do strongly urge upon the Secretary of State for War the necessity of keeping our home battalions at 750 men if it is possible, and the other battalions at 850 men, because the experience of the last 20 years has shown us that our case is entirely dissimilar from that of foreign countries. Our battalions must be ready to go into the field at any moment, and we ought to be able to meat the wants of little wars such as we have had of late years without calling out our Reserves, except, perhaps, the last two years Reserves or the men of the Re-serve who volunteer. We have been doing a most serious thing in regard to our Reserves; when the Reserves were first formed it was, I think, expected they would have to fight in a European war—say, once in a generation. Well, now we have had them out in whole or in part three times in little more than half that time. Now, that is a very serious thing; it prevents Reserve men getting employment in the country, and, therefore, is very detrimental to their interests. We ought only to call upon our Reserves in serious emergencies as was originally intended, and the only possible way of doing that is to keep our battalions at their proper strength. When our Reserves were first formed in 1870, Mr. Cardwell calculated upon having a Reserve of 60,000; the statement of the Secretary of State for War this year shows us that by the year 1894 we shall have 60,000 Reserve men. That means in five-sixths of a generation, after the number of 60,000 was fixed upon, and in that time the nation will have grown probably by 8,000,000 of men. I particularly want to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for War to this

    131
    The cost of maintaining our forces should be calculated upon the cost per head of the population. That is the only fair way of looking at the cost of our Force.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I am sorry my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Blundell) has been an exception to the almost universal rule in this debate, inasmuch as he disparages the increase of the Garrison Artillery. I can assure him there is no subject to which I have given more personal attention than that. I think there can be no question that the increase of our Garrison Artillery is the most important step that can be taken for the defence of the country, and I am satisfied that if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me a half-an-hour of his time I can show him that there are very important places which cannot be adequately defended unless this House consent to add to the Garrison Artillery. Now, as regards the other point, which has really been hardly discussed in this House to-night upon a proper footing. The real question is—whether Horse Artillery, or Field Artillery, is better for our purposes in time of war. The line I have endeavoured to take up, and in which I have been supported by military experts, is that you do want a certain proportion of Horse Artillery, but that for many purposes the Field Artillery is very much more valuable than Horse Artillery can be. They have a better gun, or they will shortly have about the best gun it is possible for Field Artillery to have. We believe that in time of war Field Artillery batteries will be more efficient, and able to provide a greater amount of gun power, than Horse Artillery will. There is, I think, a certain portion of our Artillery which must be capable of rapid movement—that portion, for instance, which is required to move with the Cavalry; but when you go beyond this portion, you will find that Field Artillery provides a better and more efficient arm, because it is able to work guns of greater power. But, having said that, I should like to appeal to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Molloy), who argues, as a great many other Members do, that we are making a great mistake in reducing the Horse Artillery, and that we are only doing so for the purpose of effecting a very small economy. What step has he taken? He proposes to cut down the Estimates still further—to
    132
    reduce still further the sum of money we have for the purpose of all our various kinds of defence. I should be exceedingly sorry if that lame and impolitic stop were taken to-night. I regret the proposal I hare made and carried out has not been received by hon. Members with any favour, yet, at the same time, I cannot understand why hon. Members, who object to the reduction in strength of the Horse Artillery, favour a reduction in the amount of the Vote for the Army generally.
    MR. MOLLOY: The argument the right hon. Gentleman has just used I have heard used in this House for the last nine years. Whenever a Member of this House rises to protest against what he thinks an unwise step on the part of the Government, and moves the reduction of a Vote, the Government say—"Oh, your method of proceeding makes matters worse." If the right hon. Gentleman will tell me how we are to protest against an act, which certainly a large proportion of Members disagree with, except by moving a reduction of the Vote, I shall be very glad to put what he says into practice. If he would prefer it, I will merely move to reduce the Vote by £1—I simply make my Motion as a protest. Of course, there is no use in trying to conceal from ourselves the fact that my proposition to reduce the Vote has as much chance of being carried as I should have, if I so wished, of replacing the right hon. Gentleman by myself. I do think that it is necessary, in these matters, to get rid of the hollowness of debate which has been apparent so long; that we should publicly show our disagreement with the action of the Government, which we can only do by taking a vote on the subject. If I thought that my Motion had any chance of being carried, I would certainly not go to a Division, because the effect of its adoption would be to injure the Service still more. The right hon. Gentleman is far abler in these matters than myself, and I am satisfied that what he has done he has done from thoroughly conscientious motives; but the difficulty is this—that all the military opinions of the country disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know who the advisers of the Government are in this matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Durham (General

    133
    Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) said he had made inquiries in every Department to find out who had advised the Government, but he had been unable to discover their advisers. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War seems to be under the impression that the best thing the country can do is to strengthen its Field Artillery. Do that as much as you like; but if you are going to strengthen one arm of the Service by weakening another I must disapprove your action. For the sake of the paltry and miserable economy of £4,000 or £5,000 a-year you are going to disband that branch of the Service which is really the most useful you have in time of war.
    COLONEL HILL: So far from desiring to reduce this Vote, I personally should like to add something to it, to enable the Volunteer Artillery to acquire a proper knowledge of the working of the guns they will have to work in case their services are ever required. They have not at present that opportunity; they have to drill with guns that are distinctly obsolete; and it is rather discouraging to them that they should spend their time in learning that which is not directly applicable to the purpose they may be called upon to serve. There are some Artillery Volunteer Corps who have the advantage of being within reasonable distance of ports, and they have an opportunity of acquiring the knowledge they ought to have; but there are others. Take, for instance, my own regiment, which has within it 1,250 efficient gunners—which are situated very considerable distances from any large fort, and the only opportunity such batteries have of seeing the larger guns, and becoming at all acquainted with the interior of forts, magazines, and so on, is that afforded by being sent down to exercise with the Royal Artillery. These opportunities come very rarely, and they are seized by Volunteer officers, and I think that, if some money could be granted to give to the Volunteer Corps the opportunity of more frequently visiting large ports, the been would be very much appreciated. It has been suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Hampshire (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) that something might be done by placing these large guns at depôt
    134
    centres. That, no doubt, would be something for us; we should have an opportunity of practising with such guns; but I have in mind a case in which it might be desirable that these guns might be so placed as not only to be valuable for drill, but for the defence of the country. I have in my mind particularly the case of the Bristol Channel, where a heavy gun would be of the greatest possible service in the defence of the roadstead; and, at the same time, be valuable for drill. I venture to impress on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War the fact that the Volunteer Artillery are most anxious to do all in their power to acquire a knowledge of the modern guns, and to assure him that any assistance he may give in that direction will be very much appreciated.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: While I shall not vote for the proposed reduction, I wish it to be understood that I am opposed to the reduction of the Horse Artillery; no one in this House has stronger views on this subject than I have. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he has only been a few months in Office. I do hope that when he has been longer in Office, as I trust he will be, he will see his way to reconsider his decision as regards the Horse Artillery. It is impossible to make gunners in a day, and I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to defer to the feelings of the vast majority of military experts upon this question.
    SIR EDWARD HAMLEY: I have not quite succeeded in gathering from the Secretary of State for War whether his proposed reduction of the Horse Artillery is still open to revision. If he has not committed himself beyond recall, I venture most earnestly to beseech him to reconsider his decision, because it seems to me one of the most unpopular and impolitic steps ever taken by the War Office. I ask him to consider that all the Military and Naval Members of the House have joined in the very respectful and very strong remonstrations against the step which he proposes, and I think perhaps their opinions may be considered as well worthy his attention as those of that distinguished General of whom we have heard so much, and whose opinions, I

    135
    think, go to show that a man may be a distinguished General and yet a very unsafe adviser for a Secretary of State for War. I think everything has been said in the course of the remarks of previous speakers that can be said against this measure, and therefore I do not propose to go over the ground again, or any part of it; but I do wish to take this opportunity of recording my earnest protest against the reduction of a single gun either of the Field or of the Horse Artillery.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I must, with deep regret, give my vote for the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy), though I assure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that I shall not give my vote in any factious spirit. I entirely disapprove of the proposed reduction in the Horse Artillery, and I trust that before long the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to retrace this fatal step. I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman would act wisely if he were to dissociate himself from his present military advisers and act solely upon his own responsibility, which, I am sure, would lead him to agree with the tenour of the remarks which have been so generally expressed by hon. and gallant Gentlemen to-night.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I just wish to say that I represent the military town of Canterbury, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that it is the opinion of all the military men there that he has committed a serious mistake in the matter of the Horse Artillery. I, therefore, trust he will reconsider his decision.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 94: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 141.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a further sum, not exceeeding £3,830,300, he granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1888, viz.:—

CIVIL SERVICES.
CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Great Britain:

£

Royal Palaces

4,000

Marlborough House

500

Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

15,000

Houses of Parliament

9,000

Gordon Monument

500

Public Buildings

20,000

Furniture of Public Offices

3,000

Revenue Department Buildings

34,000

County Court Buildings

4,000

Metropolitan Police Courts

1,500

Sheriff' Court Houses, Scotland

6,000

Surveys of the United Kingdom

35,000

Science and Art Department Buildings

3,000

British Museum Buildings

2,000

Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade

6,500

Peterhead Harbour

4,000

Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)

15,000

Metropolitan Fire Brigade

2,500

Disturnpiked and Main Roads(England and Wales)

Disturnpiked Roads (Scotland)

Ireland:—

Public Buildings

30,000

Science and Art Buildings, Dublin

5,000

Abroad:—

Lighthouses Abroad

1,000

Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

3,000

CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

England:—

House of Lords, Offices

9,000

House of Commons, Offices

10,000

Treasury, including Parliamentary Counsel

10,000

Home Office and Subordinate Departments

15,000

Foreign Office

10,000

Colonial Office

7,000

Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

3,000

Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

10,000

Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department)

6,000

Civil Service Commission

8,000

Exchequer and Audit Department

8,000

Friendly Societies, Registry

1,500

Land Commission for England

4,000

Local Government Board

110,000

Lunacy Commission

3,000

Mint (including Coinage)

2,000

National Debt Office

2,500

Patent Office

8,000

Paymaster General's Office

3,500

Public Works Loan Commission

1,000

Record Office

4,000

MR. LABOUCHERE: I apprehend that this Vote on Account will be sufficient for the Government until the commencement of July; but it certainly is a very unprecedented course that the Estimates should have been practically put off until so late a day, and that Votes on Account should have been taken. The Government can hardly complain, if they choose to adopt this course, of everyone of these items being discussed seriatim. For my own part, I am anxious that Public Business should not be impeded in any way, and, therefore, I am afraid we shall have to wait in order to discuss every one of the items until they come on in the shape of ordinary Estimates. However, in Class I there is one Estimate which, I think, we ought to test—namely, that for the Metropolitan Police Courts. It will be seen that the total amount asked for the year under this head is £6,737; and taking the sum voted on Account on a previous occasion and the amount now asked for, we see that almost one-half of the whole will be voted on Account. Now, it is not a question of how much shall be voted, or whether the money is wholly or partly expended. The question is whether this money ought to be voted at all by the House of Commons? I, and others on this side of the House, and I believe many on the other side of the House also, have always contended that this is an expenditure which ought to fall on the Metropolis itself. I remember on the last Vote on Account I called the attention of the Committee to this matter, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Public Works (Mr. Plunket) replied to me that there was a set-off, because the County Courts were paid for out of the Treasury. But I need hardly say that that is no set-off of any sort or kind. In Manchester and Liverpool, and most of our large towns, there are County Courts and Police Courts, and in London there are County Courts and Police Courts,
140
and there is no set-off in saying that the County Courts in Provincial towns are paid for by the Treasury, because the County Courts in London are also paid for by the Treasury. We have the clear, hard fact, then, before us, that in all large towns the Police Courts are paid for out of the local rates, but that in London they are paid for by the Treasury. The matter has been frequently raised in this House, and there are Gentlemen on both sides who take the same view upon it that I do. Under these circumstances, I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by this sum of £1,500 which is to be devoted to the Metropolitan Police Courts.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,828,800, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): The principle upon which the Metropolitan Police Courts were handed over to the Office of Works to be maintained by them by a Parliamentary Vote was that it was considered that the business of the London Police Courts was, or might be, of a rather more than local character. It was thought that they should be dealt with on the same basis as the Law Courts throughout the country rather than on the example of the Police Courts throughout the other parts of the Kingdom. Doubtless, the Police Court in Bow Street formerly had a very wide and extended jurisdiction, its writs running all over the country. But whatever may have been the principle or policy of the arrangement made, the answer I have to make to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton is, that under an Act of Parliament the Metropolitan Police Courts have been handed over to the Office of Works, and the Office of Works has been required to purchase, hire, or otherwise provide such Court-houses, offices, or buildings as may be required for carrying on the business of the various Police Courts in the Metropolitan Police Districts. These buildings and offices have to be cleaned, lighted, and warmed by the Office of Works. Well, as I have no other funds out of which to defray the expenses of cleaning, lighting, and warming the offices handed over to my charge under the Act to which I have

141
referred, which was passed through Parliament in all its stages without comment, I am obliged to come to this House and ask it to provide means with which to give effect to that Act of Parliament. These are the grounds upon which I ask the Committee to vote this money.
MR. LABOUCHERE: This is rather an explanation than an excuse which we have received from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I would point out to him that about two years ago it was moved that the expenses of the Parks in London should no longer be borne by the Treasury, but by London. It was agreed then that an Act of Parliament should be brought in by the then Government to throw this expenditure upon the Metropolis. If we were to refuse to pass this Vote, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to bring in a Bill, and pass it into an Act of Parliament, and it would become law, by which the charge for these Police Courts would be thrown upon the Metropolis. I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman can fairly ask us not to vote against this Estimate simply because there appears to be an Act of Parliament requiring the Office of Works to look after these Police Courts, for the passing of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given reasons, which reasons experience shows us to be absolutely worthless. He might, perhaps, hold that Bow Street Police Office is in an exceptional position compared with other Police Offices in the country; but he can hardly hold that the Greenwich Police Court or the Wandsworth Police Court, both of which are included in this Vote, are more important Police Courts than those of Manchester, Liverpool, and other large towns in the country. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, this question has long been a bone of contention. I was anxious that Her Majesty's Government, who are so desirous of reform and economy and all that sort of thing, should refrain from proposing this Vote, or should say that if the money were voted for the present, they would bring in a Bill and take care that it should be borne by those who ought to bear it next year. If we receive such an assurance I shall not press the matter to a Division; but unless such an assurance is given I shall divide the Committee upon this item.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think the objection taken to the Vote is reasonable, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not made a very vigorous defence of the principle and policy of paying the expenses of the Metropolitan Police Courts out of the Vote which falls upon the taxpayer of the United Kingdom. Even had he made a vigorous defence of it, I think we should not accept his authority for the course of proceeding referred to, without having some assurances as to the future state of the matter. It is well to tell the House that the Act of Parliament throws a particular duty upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that he has no funds with which to discharge that duty unless Parliament supplies them. That is a very good excuse for the Vote this year, but what about the Vote next year and the year succeeding? Is the United Kingdom to continue for an indefinite period to contribute to the expense of keeping and maintaining these Police Courts. I think the protest against this state of things is a most reasonable protest, coming from an Englishman; but when we consider the case of Ireland, and consider that a Vote of this kind, for the maintenance of the Metropolitan Police Courts, in which we have not the smallest interest, falls not only on the English taxpayer, but also on the Irish taxpayer, I think the charge is an anomalous and monstrous one. I think before we pass this Vote we are entitled to have some assurance as to what the future state of things is to be. Is the United Kingdom to continue for an indefinite period to contribute towards maintaining the Metropolitan Police Courts? Surely this great City in which we now are is sufficiently wealthy to maintain its own Police Courts. One would think the Municipality of London would be ashamed to come to the taxpayer, hat in hand, begging him to maintain its Police Courts—begging him to pay the costs of getting within the clutches of the law, and of punishing them when they are there, the citizens of London for being drunk and disorderly, and so on. I think this protest is a fair one. I think we are entitled to some assurance that for the future this most anomalous state of things will not be continued, and that the taxpayer of the United Kingdom

143
shall not be compelled to contribute to this purely local purpose.
MR. PLUNKET: I would add one word to what I have already said. I suppose that whenever the Bill for the Government of the Metropolis comes before the House, this will be one of the questions raised in the debates; but when hon. Members ask mo to undertake to introduce a Bill for the purpose of putting the cost of the maintenance of the Police Courts on the Metropolis, and to pass that Bill through the House, I must beg them to remember that this is part of a very large question. I would also remind the Committee that very early in this Session I introduced a Bill for the very purpose referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton in another part of his remarks—namely, for the purpose of handing over a certain number of the Parks in London to the Metropolitan Board of Works. I must remind the Committee that I kept putting that Bill down every day, and that it has been hardly an agreeable duty to have to wait here until half-past 1 or 2 o'clock every morning in order merely to postpone the Bill, to say "this day, Sir," when it is called on; but I have been able to proceed no further with it. If we could get some security for the withdrawal of blocks against the Bill, it would, no doubt, have a good effect upon the progress of that measure, and I am glad of this opportunity of calling the attention of the Committee and of the country to the fact that this Bill—a very small Bill, and one which I believe would involve no controversy—has been standing on the Notice Paper day after day for second reading, and night after night, and cannot be disposed of on account of blocks. As to the policy of this Police Court question, I can only repeat that that is a question to be decided when the great question of Metropolitan Government comes up for discussion in this House.
MR. CHANCE: I cannot conceive how a Government which has introduced a Bill for the handing over of some Parks in London to the Metropolitan Board of Works can have any excuse for not introducing a measure to hand over, in a similar manner, the Metropolitan Police Courts to some Metropolitan Authority. It seems to me that there might be some little excuse for imposing the cost of the Parks upon
144
the taxpayers generally. Some of us or our constituents may, on some occasion, be able to derive amusement from the Parks, and may gain some little advantage from them; but I trust very few of our constituents have the smallest desire to derive advantage from the existence of the Police Courts, or, at any rate, will desire to derive instruction and amusement from them. Probably, the tendency of the Government to render these Courts places where amusement and instruction can be derived arises from the peculiar experiences of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman), who, we may suppose, did derive a certain amount of instruction and benefit from one of these institutions. The right hon. Gentleman opposite tells us that the Bill for transferring some of the London Parks to the Metropolitan Board of Works is blocked. Well, Sir, I do not know anything about that Bill, but I suppose it is due to the fact that some London Members desire to save the pockets of the London ratepayers. I trust, at any rate, that no one sitting on this side of the House will oppose a Bill which would propose to hand over all the Parks, under proper regulations, to the proper Local Authorities. I cannot admit that there is the slightest validity in the plea put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, that there would be difficulty in getting the Bill through the House. He seems to forget that he is a Member of a Government who do not find it difficult to keep 200 or 250 of their followers on the premises, to draw them out of the Smoking Room and the Reading Rooms from time to time, and keep them galloping through the Lobbies in order to pass a Bill without discussion. I think it is the duty of everyone in this Committee to insist that a Division shall be taken, and to insist that this question shall be fully debated, unless we have an undertaking that this system under which London goes sponging upon the whole country to do that which it ought to do itself is to be put a stop to at once for all.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 113: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 142.)
Original Question again proposed.
MR. MONTAGU: Mr. Courtney, I wish to direct the attention of the Government to some of the regulations with regard to coinage. Last month, when the Budget was introduced, I discussed at some length the urgent necessity of restoring our currency to a proper condition. I think I made out a good case for the reform of the Mint regulations, especially with regard to the manufacture and composition of our gold coinage. I think I showed that in these respects we are far behind Germany and other Powers. On that occasion the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), who followed me in the debate, made a most startling proposition. He suggested that we should abolish the half-sovereigns, and replace them by silver, and utilize the profit from the silver for the restoration of the gold coinage. If that proposition had been made by an ordinary private Member, it would have sufficed to say that the public would never consent to part with so useful a coin as the half-sovereign, but a proposal emanating from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer must be more seriously considered. I should like to know if the noble Lord is aware that, at least, £20,000,000 sterling of half-sovereigns circulate in equal legal tender with sovereigns; and I would also point out to him that all gold-using countries use gold coins of the value of l0 s., and even less. The United States of America use a two and a half and a one dollar gold piece, although they have one and two dollar notes. Germany coins the ten mark and five mark pieces in gold, although they have there notes of as low a value as five marks. The countries which are comprised in the Latin Union have the ten franc and five franc pieces in gold, worth respectively less than 8s. and 4s. I think that if we had to choose between the retention of sovereigns and half-sovereigns, as a matter of convenience We should retain half-sovereigns, because we might possibly replace the sovereigns in part by £1 notes, and we might pass two half-sovereigns instead of one sovereign. We never can abandon the half-sovereign. I do not think any hon. Gentleman, if he had 6d. to pay, and tendered a sovereign in payment, would care to receive in change so much silver as 19 s. 6d. In this country we used to have smaller gold coins
146
than the half-sovereign; we had a third of a guinea, worth 7s., and a quarter of a guinea, worth 5s. 3d. I do not recommend that we should have gold coins smaller than half-sovereigns, on account of the cost of their wear and tear. When the noble Lord suggests that we should replace the £20,000,000 sterling worth of half-sovereigns by silver, does he recollect that half-sovereigns have a full legal tender, whereas the silver tokens would only be a legal tender to the amount of 40 s.? The noble Lord suggested we might make a large profit. Certainly we might make a profit of £5,000,000 sterling, but it would not be honestly made. The worst possible mode of raising money would be the depreciation of the coinage circulating in the country. The original intention was that we should circulate silver at the moderate premium of 10 per cent, not to make money by it, but in order to retain it in the country. If the noble Lord's suggestion were adopted, our Government would appear as the purchaser of something like £14,000,000 or £15,000,000 worth of silver. That would be very welcome in the silver market; but there would be a competition between Germany, the United States, and France as to which of them should supply us with the silver and take away our gold in exchange. Each of these countries have more silver to spare than this; and such a transaction as that, without an International Convention, would certainly be more dangerous to this country than any introduction of International bi-metallism, because, when the exchange had been made, there would be no greater stability for silver. We should be encumbered with a large amount of token money, which would embarrass and inconvenience our public; we should certainly have in. that case much more silver in currency than if we had International bi-metallism. I will, however, pass from that subject, and suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) that we might permit the Mint to coin a British trade dollar; that the Mint should be allowed to coin this dollar at the expense of those who sent in the silver. This British trade dollar should be a legal tender, concurrently with the Mexican dollar in the Straits Settlement and Hong Kong. It should have impressed upon it some

147
permanent emblem, such as St. George and the Dragon or Britannia, so that there should be no necessity to change the die. The advantage is self-evident. We should no longer be dependent upon foreign Mints for the currency in our own Colonies. The French have coined a large quantity of French trade dollars, and the Germans are likely to follow suit. We should then be at a great disadvantage. We know that trade generally follows the flag, and we also know that the prestige and power of a country are typified in the eyes of Natives of the East by the coins of that Power which circulate. Therefore, I trust that this small facility, which will certainly help the trade of the East, may be permitted, especially as it will be no expense to the Exchequer. I would like to refer very briefly to another very important subject, and that is, whether the time has not yet arrived when we should introduce into this country a decimal coinage? Hon. Members may be surprised to learn that every foreign country in the world possesses a decimal currency, and that it has been a benefit to the people, while we, with our insular prejudices, are left high and dry, and a good many of our Colonies with us. It can hardly be possible, in a matter of convenience in the coinage circulation, that all the world should be wrong, and that we alone should be right. This is not a new question. It was agitated something like 30 years ago. I took part in that agitation; and, therefore, I may, perhaps, be justified in speaking of it now. I believe a Resolution in favour of the introduction of a decimal system was passed in this House, and that there was a Report in its favour from a Committee. The question, however, was, as usual, shelved by a Royal Commission. It may be asked, whether there are any better prospects now than there were formerly for the adoption of a decimal coinage? I think there are much better prospects, because, not so long ago as 30 years, nor as 20 years, many of the Great Powers had not adopted a decimal coinage. Some of our Colonies, even, possess a decimal coinage—Canada, Ceylon, and the Mauritius. It must be remembered that of all the foreign countries and our Colonies which have adopted the decimal coinage not one has endeavoured to retrace the step. Another argument in favour of the proposal is that since 1870
148
the education of the working classes has been very much improved, and they could now much more readily understand the slight change which would have to be made than they could formerly. Moreover, it is a grave question for the Government whether they should compel the children in board schools to learn so useless a study as compound arithmetic. If we adopted a decimal currency I am informed that a saving of six months would be effected in the education of every child in this country. What I propose is that we retain almost every one of our existing coins. That we should retain the sovereign, divided into 1,000 milles; the half-sovereign, divided into 500 milles; the crown, divided into 250 milles; the half-crown, divided into 125 milles; the florin, divided into 100 milles; the shilling, divided into 50 milles; the sixpence, divided into 25 milles; then we should have a dime, representing 10 milles; a half-dime, representing 5 milles; and a new farthing or mille. You see only three new coins are needed to complete our decimal system. We could retain all our present coins in circulation, and that would do away with the objection with regard to the purchase of stamps, newspapers, &c, with pence and half-pence. In order, if you wish, to prepare the way for the introduction eventually of the four mille and two mille copper pieces, you might permit the French two sou and the sou to pass as four milles and two milles respectively. You have already stopped the importation of the French coins which were passed here with 5 per cent profit; but if you adopt my suggestion, and allow French copper pieces to pass as four milles and two milles, there would be no possibility of French coins being imported unduly, and you might produce a kind of Anglo - French currency—an International arrangement which later on might lead to much better things. I brought this decimal coinage question before the London Chamber of Commerce, who passed my resolution with but one dissentient. Since then at least 14 Provincial Chambers of Commerce have sent in their approval of decimalizing the pound sterling, and I feel quite sure that the movement will spread. I trust the Government will adopt my suggestions which I have so briefly made. They are the outcome

149
of 40 years' experience in all kinds of currencies. I do not think the Government need force a decimal currency upon the public, but permit it to be adopted by completing our decimal question by issuing the three coins I have mentioned. The merchants and bankers and all those members of the different Chambers of Commerce would take up the movement; they would show the Government and the public how welcome would be the change—a change which, I think, would certainly facilitate our commerce in every shape and way. If the Government were to refer the matter to a Select Committee, I feel sure my proposal would meet with approval at the hands of such a Committee, because its adoption would not only facilitate commerce, but also facilitate the education of our young people, and also prepare the way, later on, for a much larger and a very necessary reform—that is, a reform in our weights and measures.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): This is an extremely complicated question to deal with upon the charge for the Mint. My hon. Friend the Member for the Whitechapel Division of the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Montagu) very justly claims to have very great experience on this matter; but I confess I consider it open to question whether the present is a proper time to discuss matters of currency ranging from £1 notes and half-sovereigns to the new coins which he has described. The hon. Member wishes to open up the subject of a decimal coinage, and he has spoken of the decision which has been arrived at by the London Chamber of Commerce upon this matter. I shall have the honour of receiving a deputation from the London Chamber of Commerce with regard to a decimal coinage in the course of a few weeks, and I should prefer to reserve any remarks that I may have to make upon the subject until I have heard it discussed by the members of the London Chamber of Commerce and the representatives of other Chambers. As at present advised, I must admit that it would be with very great hesitation that I should approach any question of changing the coinage of this country. If there is one thing upon which the general public is extremely sensitive it is upon questions of alterations of the
150
rates of coinage and weights and measures, and the general arrangements of commerce to which they have been accustomed. I can fancy that excellent scientific arguments could be urged on behalf of the views of my hon. Friend; but when you come to practical dealing with this matter, I cannot conceive anything which would more disturb the general feelings of the public with regard to the currency than the introduction of a number of new coins, whether they are four milles, or two milles, or eight milles. or whatever name may be given to them. This is essentially one of those questions upon which it appears to me that theory and practice are at variance. According to theory, decimal coinage is excellent, and mathematicians—in and out of this House—are naturally enthusiastic on behalf of such a simple measure; but I believe that the great bulk of the traders of this country, and especially of small traders, and the bulk of the purchasing and selling public, would be adverse to any changes which would disturb the general measure of value to which they are accustomed. And I doubt whether the convenience of the great merchants and bankers, and the international traders generally, which would be furthered by the adoption of the views of the hon. Gentleman would be sufficient compensation for the great disturbance which would be introduced into the general trade. I am aware of the great progress which has been made in decimal and fractional calculations by the action of the schools; but, nevertheless, I think that to introduce a new system of calculation would be a most hazardous measure. It is only the respect which is duo to the hon. Member who has introduced this subject to the Committee this evening which has induced me to anticipate what I would rather have reserved until I had heard the views of the Chambers of Commerce on the question of the currency. I think I have intimated to my hon. Friend that the large question of £1 notes and the general revision of the coinage from the point of view of light gold and defaced silver, and from the point of view of various reforms which may have to be introduced, are occupying the attention of the Government in a very serious manner. I am grateful to the hon. Member for the valuable contributions he makes on this subject,

151
both publicly and privately. I shall be always happy to receive any suggestion he may make; but I trust he will excuse me from giving any premature declaration upon any of these extremely important questions affecting the coinage of the country.
MR. DILLON: Mr. Courtney, I wish to say a few words upon Vote 2, Class 2—House of Commons Offices. I desire to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) a matter which was raised some years ago, and that is the extremely defective library accommodation in this House. As I understand, the arrangements of the Library of this House are under an old understanding left in the hands of the Speaker; but what I and others desire is, that they should be entrusted to a Committee, as the Kitchen arrangements are left to a Kitchen Committee. The space in the Library is entirely insufficient, more especially since the numbers in constant attendance on the House have largely increased. Again, complaint is very properly made of the insufficient supply of books.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question of the physical accommodation in the Library and of the Library management comes under Vote 4, Class 1. Though the words, "House of Commons Offices" are used here, the item refers to the personnel of the House—to the pay of the officers.
MR. DILLON: I will not refer any further to the physical accommodation of the Library. On examining the Civil Service Estimates, I came to the conclusion that the best Vote, or the only Vote, upon which I could raise the question of the purchase of books and the arrangements of the rooms in the Library was the Vote for the Speaker's Department. I find that the Vote for that Department includes allowances for the librarian, assistant librarian, and all the assistants in the Library, and I made inquiry the other day, and the librarian informed me that the purchase of books, and, in fact, all the arrangements of the Library were directly under the control of the Speaker, and belonged to the Speaker's Department. I may have been misinformed. I am anxious to get opinion from the First Commissioner of Works.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is no doubt; he question of the management of the Library and the purchase of books might be discussed on the Vote including the salary for the librarian.
MR. DILLON: The chief point I wish to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman is that, in my opinion, the management of the Library ought to be entrusted to a Committee of the House, just as the Kitchen arrangements are, so that any suggestions as to alterations as to the Library accommodation, or the purchase or supply of books, could be directly made to a Committee which would represent all the sections of the House. I do not intend to press this matter at any length to-night; but I thought I would give notice to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that I will raise the question at a later stage.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): I should like to explain to the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that I cannot answer with authority on this question, because it does not come within my Department at all. So far as my knowledge goes, this is the first time the suggestion has been made. No doubt the authorities who are responsible for the matter will consider what he has proposed, whether they agree with it ultimately or not. I wish the hon. Gentleman, however, to understand that I have no authority whatever in the matter.
MR. W. H. JAMES: Mr. Courtney, this is a Vote which makes provision for the salaries of officials of the Colonial Office, and, therefore, I am anxious to address a few observations to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Henry Holland) with reference to some matters in a distant part of the world in regard to which I have put a few Questions to him at various intervals since the commencement of the Session. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do not make these observations with any desire to be hostile to him or the Government. My observations will relate to the religious persecutions in the Island of Tonga, which have attracted very considerable attention in religious Bodies, and in certain sections of the Press. Now, the right hon. Gentleman stated to me the other night that he had received a tele-

153
graphic summary of the Report which Sir Charles Mitchell has forwarded to the Government. I do not wish for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman should prejudge the question, or come to any hasty decision upon the very brief summary which Sir Charles Mitchell has telegraphed home. But this matter is not a now one to the Colonial Office. I think, so far back as the year 1883, Sir George W. Des Vœux, who was at that time Governor at Fiji, and I think, anterior to that date, Sir Arthur Gordon had called attention to the religious persecutions which existed in the Island of Tonga. Tonga is under the control nominally of King George, who is upwards of 80 years of age; but I think it will be admitted from the Reports in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman from those who are acquainted with the affairs of the Island, that this man is perfectly incompetent to form any opinion on any question whatever. The de facto Governor of Tonga is an ex-Wesleyan minister, a certain Mr. Shirley Baker, and he has been of late years complete and absolute Sovereign of the Island. Mr. Baker some years ago had a dispute with the Wesleyan Church, and he seems to have betaken himself to Tonga, and there to have set up a rival church. Mr. Baker is a man of very considerable wealth, and very great ability, and of absolutely no scruples; and I confess that the sort of proceedings which have disgraced, and do still disgrace, affairs in that Island, appear to me, so long as they are allowed to remain in their present form, a disgrace and blot upon the British name, Sir Charles Mitchell telegraphs that the statements as to these persecutions are to a very considerable extent true. So far from thinking that they have been exaggerated I believe they have been understated, and that when the whole facts of these deplorable outrages—these disgraceful and horrible outrages—are known, it will be found that the annals of religious persecutions for several centuries past will scarcely afford a parallel for anything that has occurred in Tonga. I am anxious to address the right hon. Gentleman, however, as to one particular point. Mr. Shirley Baker, who is an extremely subtle and able person, has succeeded in ingratiating himself by various methods with foreign interests.
154
I am anxious to ask my right hon. Friend that when Sir Charles Mitchell's Report is received he will consider it entirely upon its own merits and in its own interests. It appears to me that if we are a great country we should not in any way recognize or support the terrible state of things which has gone on in Tonga for the last four or five years. The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, which, in its very nature, is one of the most drastic Acts which has ever been passed by the English Legislature gives very considerable powers in the Western Pacific to Her Majesty's High Commissioner. I believe it is quite within the power of the High Commissioner to deport this de facto Governor to some other portion of Her Majesty's Dominions, and, if it does not absolutely give the power of deporting this man, so serious have been the outrages, the murders, the floggings and cruelties that Her Majesty's Government would be perfectly justified, in my opinion, in taking this de facto Governor to some portions of the Queen's Dominions where he might be tried and made amenable for these terrible offences. I hope I may have some assurances from the right hon. Gentleman that when the Report comas to him he will consider it strictly upon its own merits, and that he will not be involved in other entanglements. I cannot believe that any foreign Power will be anxious in any way to identify itself with the outrages which have been perpetrated, and which are going on now; and I believe that our taking the lead in such a course and line as I have suggested, so far from being disadvantageous to our interests with other Powers, would be distinctly to our interests. I am quite willing to acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to do what is proper and just, and I only make these observations in the hope that I may be able to strengthen his hands in the course he may take. I assure him very considerable interest will be taken by the religious bodies who have been identified with missionary work in the Western Pacific in the course he takes.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I am not at all disposed to dispute the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James). I have only

155
to say, that the information with regard to the alleged outrages that we have is the same of which the hon. Member himself is possessed; but I should like to assure the Committee that Her Majesty's Government are fully alive, and have been fully alive, to the importance of this subject. The moment we received any Report of these outrages Sir Charles Mitchell was telegraphed to to go to Tonga. He arrived there on the 27th of March, and reported that the King afforded him every facility to make inquiries, and all was quiet. The proceedings had then ceased, and the British interests, so far as we learned, were not affected by the recent events. I may add, that to secure a more searching inquiry, and that all legal questions should be thoroughly discussed, Sir Charles Mitchell took with him Mr. Clark, who is Chief Judicial Commissioner under the Pacific Acts. Then we come to the telegram of the 30th April, to which the hon. Member has referred, and which, I admit, is to a certain extent unsatisfactory. Perhaps, for the information of hon. Members who did not hear me read the telegram the other day I had better read it again. It is—
"April 30,—Returned from Tonga to-day. Send report by next mail. Full inquiry showed report of religious persecution true to a considerable extent. King promises make chiefs observe constitution as regards religious freedom in future and generally protect Wesleyans. All quiet now. Europeans in no case interfered with."
The hon. Member has referred to the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts. Now, the power under which the Chief Commissioner acts, and especially the power to which he referred, the power of deportation, is given under the Western Pacific Order in Council. There is no doubt under that Order in Council the High Commissioner has power in certain cases, and one of those cases is, if a British subject is likely to be dangerous to the peace and good order of the Island, to order a British subject to remove himself, and if he does not leave, the High Commissioner has power to deport him. I need hardly say that it would not have been right for Her Majesty's Government, when instructing Sir Charles Mitchell to go out to Tonga, without a full knowledge of the facts, to order him to remove or deport Mr. Baker; and I may also say there is not
156
much encouragement to the High Commissioner to deport a man, because during Sir Arthur Gordon's time a man named Hunt was deported, and this man afterwards proceeded against the High Commissioner, and succeeded in his action. I believe he succeeded on a technical point, but still what occurred does not offer much encouragement to a High Commissioner to put into use the power of deportation. The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question, to which I can give him an unhesitating answer. He asked me whether the Report of Sir Charles Mitchell would be considered on its own merits. I can assure him without hesitation that that will be the case. So far as I know, it is not likely that any foreign Power will interfere with our discretion in the matter; but I can assure him that the Report will be considered most carefully. Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of the question, and will take such steps as they may be advised to take on the Report. Of course, the hon. Member cannot expect me to say more until we have received from Sir Charles Mitchell his Report. I hope the hon. Member will regard my answer as satisfactory.
MR. P. J. POWER: I should like to revert to the subject which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). It has been pointed out previously that the librarians to the House of Lords have residences granted them. I think that if hon. Members will take into account the duties which are discharged by the librarians of the two Houses, they will acknowledge that there is no comparison between their respective duties. The librarians of the House of Commons have to do considerably more than the librarians of the House of Lords; we sit very much longer, and the Members attending this House are more numerous than those attending the House of Lords. I think it will be generally admitted that our librarians give satisfaction to all Members of the House, no matter to what Party they belong; and I think they ought to receive as much consideration as the librarians of the other House. While I am upon my feet, I should like to refer to the way in which the news room is managed. I think that the Party to which I belong have something to complain of in this matter. We main-

157
tain that every section of Members in this House have weekly or monthly periodicals taken for their special reading, whereas we have nothing whatever of the kind. When the Irish Nationalist Party numbered 85 we thought, certainly, it was time some action should be taken in this matter, and I wrote to the gentleman in charge of the news room directing his attention to the matter. I did so without any consultation with my Colleagues; but I thought I expressed my views on the subject. I certainly think that when any large section of Members read a certain organ, that organ should be taken in the news room. With that view, and when the Irish Parliamentary Party assumed its present proportions, I wrote to the Sergeant-at-Arms asking him to take in the news room an Irish paper—United Ireland was the paper to which I referred, a paper which, though it may not be approved by hon. Members opposite, is a paper of which we approve, and which we largely read. The reply I received was as follows:—
"Sir,—I have given your suggestion my best consideration, but I regret to have to say that I have so much reason to believe that the laying of United Ireland on the table of the news room would cause such dissatisfaction among the Members that I do not feel justified in ordering it.—I remain, yours faithfully, H. D. ERSKINE."
To that letter I replied—
"I regret to learn that the suggestion which I made in regard to placing United Ireland on the table of the news room does not meet with your approval. I thought the wishes of the 86 Members of the Irish Parliamentary Party might have influenced you in arriving at a different decision. I have no doubt that some hon. Members might be dissatisfied at seeing United Ire/and in the reading-room, but I may point out that at present illustrated papers and other periodicals are taken which are grossly offensive to 86 Members of the House of Commons."
Well, Sir, the matter has remained there since; but I think it is a proper question to ask whether the Irish Members are supposed to stand on a par with the rest of the Members of the House of Commons. I think that if we look to the action of this House we are not considered to stand on a par with the rest of hon. Members. I maintain that if 86 Members coming from any part of the country read a certain paper, and wish that paper to be taken in the news room their wishes should be acceded to. I
158
am perfectly well aware that in giving the answer he did to my suggestion the Serjeant-at-Arms only expressed the opinion of the majority of this House; but I do not think anyone will contend that the majority of this House is actuated by any fair motives towards Ireland or the Irish Representatives. Their conduct in the last few days shows that in any matters in which Irishmen are concerned they take little or no interest. I do not suppose that my raising this question now will materially alter the case; I suspect that United Ireland will not be taken in the news room; but it is as well to point out that day by day and week by week we have garbled extracts from United Ireland in the London papers. If we have these garbled extracts put before us it is only fair that the whole of the articles should be placed at the disposal of Members in order that they may arrive at the real effect of them. Let me say that before communicating with the Serjeant-at-Arms I had no previous communication with Mr. W. O'Brien, the editor of United Ireland, who, the Committee will perhaps be glad to hear, was elected today for the Eastern Division of Cork without any opposition. Well, Mr. Courtney, United Ireland appears to be a very objectionable organ to hon. Gentlemen opposite; but we have other organs in Ireland, The Nation, for instance, and we certainly submit that some such paper should be placed at the disposal of the 86 Irish Members. I am not certain that many hon. Members would read these organs as well as ourselves, but notwithstanding that I maintain that it is only right that some such paper should be taken in our news room. Are we or are we not to be placed on a par with the other Members of the House of Commons? Is it because we cannot roll up to the House in our carriages that we are to be treated in a different mode to other Members?
MR. FINCH-HATTON: Mr. Courtney, I am very glad to find myself for once in agreement with hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, and I should be very glad indeed if United Ireland were taken in our news room, and if it were always placed side by side with The Times. I think it would perhaps be as well if the back numbers of United Ireland were also taken and placed alongside The Times.
DR. KENNY: No doubt several hon. Members opposite would have their patience severely tried by the presence of United Ireland in the Reading Room; but we might hope that the adoption of my hon. Friend's suggestion would have the effect of bringing about their conversion. Hon. Members opposite would probably take example by our good temper under provocation, and seeing that we are able philosophically to bear the presence of The Times, and other antagonistic newspapers, in the Heading Room they would be able to bear with the presence of United Ireland and The Nation. I think the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo is an admirable one. Everyone in the habit of using the Library must at times have found great difficulty in getting the books they require It is not in the power of the Library officials to do more than a certain amount of work, the Department being, in my opinion, greatly undermanned. I hope the Committee will take into consideration the suggestions which have been made, particularly that of the hon. Member for East Water-ford (Mr. P. J. Power), and that in the future we shall not have reason to complain of one-sided arrangements in the Library.
MR. DILLON: I should like to direct the attention of the Committee to an important Vote which occurs somewhat lower down in the Paper for the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland. It is a matter that I deeply complain of, that in relation to the discharge of that extraordinary Office—[interruption]. Before I come to the case of the complaint which we the Members of the Irish Party have against the holder of the Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, the most responsible of all the Offices that go to form the Government of this country, I wish to call attention to a few minor details. In the first place, it will be in the recollection of the Committee, that when the late Under Secretary for Ireland, Sir Robert Hamilton, accepted the post of Under Secretary he stipulated—or, on account of his distinguished position in the Civil Service, it was agreed—that the salary which had from time immemorial been attached to the Under Secretaryship should be raised from £2,000 to £2,500 per annum, but it was stated that this
160
should be a purely personal rise, to continue only so long as Sir Robert Hamilton should retain the post and should not permanently attach to the office, and in the Estimates from that day to this there is always a note appended to the charge for the Under Secretary for Ireland stating that the sum is a personal charge. Well, the charge in the Estimates for 1887–8—and I will ask the Committee to notice that no part of this year has or will Sir Robert Hamilton be Under Secretary for Ireland—is £2,500, though there is the usual note appended stating that this salary is personal. Personal to whom? It was personal to Sir Robert Hamilton; but how is it personal to the present holder of the Office? It is a thing very often noticed that it is very much easier to raise a salary than to reduce it to its old level, and though, in the present instance, the man on whose account the salary was raised has now gone away, the person who now holds the Office seems to think that he has as good a right to this "personal" salary as had his Predecessor. There appears to be on the face of this Estimate an attempt to smuggle in a permanent increase of £500 a-year into the salary of the Under Secretary for Ireland. It seems to me that the figure at which it has stood for so long—namely, £2,000 a-year is ample. Then there is another minor item to which I would direct attention—namely, the salary of £750 a-year, together with an item of £800 a-year for journeys between Dublin and London for an individual connected with the Irish establishment, called a draftsman to the Irish Government. I want to know who that man is, and what he does? If the work he has done has been drafting of the Crimes Bill we can take the authority of The Times newspaper as to the character of the work; but my impression is that the drafting of that and other Irish Bills is all done by the draftsman of the Government in London. It would seem from the large amount charged for travelling expenses between Dublin and London, that this individual lives perpetually in the train, and is constantly on the journey either from Dublin to London or from London to Dublin. He spent no less than £800 on railway fares and cabs. Will the Government give us some information as to who this man is, and what his work consists of, and why

161
it is necessary for him to spend £800 in travelling when he already enjoys a salary of £750? These, Sir, are minor items, and there seems to be a considerable amount of waste upon them. There is another item to which I would call attention, and which appears to me to be remarkably absurd. We know that the Chief Secretary for Ireland enjoys a salary of £4,000, and that he has a very handsome residence in the Phœnix Park in Dublin with a handsome demesne attached for his enjoyment Altogether I think that he is very handsomely compensated for his services. But he has now added to all this £425 a-year for coal. Surely, Sir, he must be the coldest man alive if he wants to burn £425 worth of coal for the year in Ireland, seeing that he has been about throe days out of the year in that country. I will leave it to the imaginations of hon. Members what fires he must keep up during the short time he is in Ireland. Now, I trust we shall have some explanation of these items of expenditure before the Committee votes the money. Of course all these are minor matters, and I shall now go to the question which really induced me to rise and trespass at some length on the time of the Committee, and that is a question as to the manner in which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has discharged the duties for which he draws this large salary in this House. Sir, we know perfectly well that in the whole experience of the Parliamentary and responsible Governments of the world there does not exist an officer whoso responsibilities are so vast and so varied as those of the Irish Chief Secretary. I do not think that there is in any other country, Constitutionally governed, an officer who answers for every single Department of the Government and of the administration of the country as the Irish Chief Secretary does to-day, and has done ever since the Act of Union was passed. Anyone who will take the trouble to look back to former investigations into the government of Ireland, and will notice the evidence given by such men as Sir Thomas Drummond when he was examined on this subject, will obtain some interesting information. They will see the duties that men like Sir Thomas Drummond, who applied themselves to perform those duties with a really conscientious spirit, had to perform. They will find de-
162
tailed in his evidence the duties which the Irish Chief Secretary and the Irish Under Secretary had and have to do, and will admit that the satisfactory discharge of those duties would tax the energies and abilities of the greatest statesmen who have ever been at the disposal of any Government. But, Sir, even the multiplicity of the duties that the Chief Secretary is supposed to perform in Ireland are certainly not in excess, in point of weight, to the responsibilities which he boars in this House. In this House he is responsible for everything that occurs in Ireland. Whereas in this country a number of different Ministers divide the various Departments of the administration amongst thorn, in Ireland the Chief Secretary must answer for everything. But that is not all, because in this country a great deal of the government is carried on, I might say, spontaneously. The demands on the Executive, as we know, and as the country is beginning to know, are infinitely simpler and more easily managed than are those demands with regard to Ireland, where you have a centralized system of bureaucratic administration trying to govern a people who are out of smypathy with their governors. The difficulties of government are increased in a case of the kind ten-fold from what they are in a country like this. What has been the course that has been adopted now for years by the Ministers of this and the Government of this country in dealing with this problem of providing a man, who, by his knowledge and acquaintance with the circumstances of Ireland, as well as by his ability, is able to bear this load of responsibility and discharge all these multifarious duties in a satisfactory way? We, the Irish Representatives, remember the expression of O'Connell, when he was describing Irish Secretaries. We remember O'Connell's saying that he could in no way describe them so well as by comparing them to "shave beggars." We know how he explained that phrase. The men who carried on the barber's trade, whenever a man came along who appeared too poor to pay, set aside an apprentice to shave him. That is the way in which the Irish have been governed. Men have been set apart to try their 'prentice hands in the art of statesmanship upon that which is really the most difficult and tangled problem

163
at the disposal of the Government. Our country has suffered enormously through the effects of that practice. In the present instance—in the case of the present Chief Secretary—we can hardly apply to him the epithet that O'Connell applied to the men of his day, inasmuch as he was apprenticed to certain other offices in the State before being sent to Ireland; but the practice in this instance has been hardly less evil than that denounced by O'Connell, for the present Irish Secretary was sent to Ireland for no other reason, that we can discover, except that he excelled almost all other Members of this House in his utter ignorance of that country. And what is the method he has adopted to attempt to extricate himself from the difficulties in which that ignorance necessarily involves him? What is the method he has adopted in order, as it were, to throw some cloak of decency around a state of things which might have seemed ludicrous if it had not been tragical? That a country torn asunder by contending factions, and in a state of the highest fever of political excitement, should be handed over to the control and irresponsible government of a man, who, whatever he may know of the condition of Scotland, where he was born, I suppose, or, at least, the country where he owns property, or whatever he knows of the condition of this country, where he has served as a statesman for some years, who knows nothing of Ireland, is ludicrous. Hero you have the government of Ireland handed over to a man who knows absolutely nothing about that country, and whose whole experience of it since he undertook to govern it was gained by a visit of three days, during which time, we are told, he dined with Lord Ardilaun, and interviewed Sir Arthur Guinness.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): That is not the fact.
MR. DILLON: I am glad to hear it. All I can is that it was stated in the newspapers. I have no other means of knowing the motions of Irish Chief Secretaries except what is stated in the newspapers. We, in Ireland, do not go near the Castle—at any rate, any man who values his good name does not go near the Castle—I have never crossed the threshold of that building, nor have I
164
ever gone near its doors. [Laughter.] Hon. Members think this a matter for laughter; but I put it to every intelligent man in this House, is that a condition of things under which you expect a country to be governed decently—I put it to every reasoning man, is it a satisfactory condition of things, so far as good government is concerned, that you find that every man who values the goodwill of the people of Ireland does not dare to set his foot in the establishment where the Government is carried on? I say that that is a state of things which seems to bring government to a reductio ad absurdum. It is no wonder, therefore, that I make some mistakes in dealing with the movements of the Chief Secretary in Ireland. At any rate, the Chief Secretary does not deny my statement when I say that his experience of the country he is engaged in governing has been limited to a visit of three days. I suppose he felt that the situation in which he was placed was an anomalous one. He found himself standing up at that Table day after day to answer Questions affecting various departments of the administration of the law in Ireland and to answer men who knew what they were asking about, and men who were instructed by their constituents to ask the Questions; he read out at that Table written answers which were put into his hands by the officials whose conduct and administration we were impugning; and when we asked him any Questions as to the correctness of these statements, we found that we might as well have questioned him on the principles of the Chinese language and the philosophy of Confucius. We found that he had no knowledge outside the written documents which were placed in his hands. I doubt whether he knows anything about the geography of the country. I should be pleased to form one of a Committee, as this seems to be a time for the appointment of Committees of Inquiry, in order to cross-examine the Irish Chief Secretary with regard to the geography of Ireland. I have not the slightest doubt but I should be able to puzzle him in the course of a quarter of an hour. That being the condition of affairs, the right hon. Gentleman cast his eyes around for some Irishman whom he could take into his confidence. He cast about for some Gentleman whose knowledge would be a cloak

165
for his own ignorance, and at last he met with the Gentleman; and, in my opinion, he has jumped from the frying-pan into the fire. For, bad as was the knowledge of Irish affairs of the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot for a moment doubt that he has not in the least improved his position by adding to his counsels and sharing his responsibilities with one of the most notorious and admitted champions of Orangeism and landlord oppression to be found in Ireland. The time has come to declare on behalf of the people whom we are sent to represent that a more scandalous mockery of Representative Government has never been enacted in this House even on Irish questions, than to see day after day at that Table rise and answer our Questions—Questions that mostly have to deal with the condition of the farmers in Ireland, and the whole administration of the law as affecting rent and the position of tenants—a Gentleman who has no acknowledged political position, who has himself, as much as any man in Ireland, brought about the condition of things which renders this interrogation necessary, and whose relations with his tenants will not bear investigation, as the result of the inquiries of the Sub-Commissioners appointed by the Government of this country abundantly testifies, and who, if there was any decency left in the Irish Government, would be one of the last men on their side whom they would ask to stand up there and answer Questions affecting rents and the administration of the law in regard to Irish tenants. Now, I think we are entitled to demand from this House, and to demand of the Unionist Members of this House, whether, in their opinion, we are being fairly treated as Representatives of the people of Ireland—considering this subject from the Unionist point of view—when we are asked to take our answers from this Gentleman? We know what the system has become; the Irish Secretary never deigns to walk into the House until the Questions are answered, and we are asked to accept, as bearing upon the whole administration of Ireland, the statements of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman), who fled from Ireland—I am now speaking in a political sense—because he knew he could not get a seat south of the Boyne,
166
and, indeed, I doubt very much whether he could have got a seat north of the Boyne either. The time, I think, has come when this question must be fully discussed, and I shall be very much surprised and disappointed if some Unionist Member does not get up in this House and give us the benefit of his opinion on this question. I shall be very much surprised if some one of them does not get up and tell us whether it is, or is not, his opinion that the future government of Ireland ought to be managed in this manner. If they are brave men, let them get up and make some declaration; if they are not brave men, let them remain silent. We, in Ireland, are entitled to say, and we shall say—"This is what you call Unionism and fair play to the people of Ireland, when the whole administration of Ireland shall be explained and expounded by an Irish rack-renting landlord, who is a staunch friend of the Orange Society—by a man whose rents have been shorn down by one half by your own Commissioners, and by a man who is threatened from day to day by a strike amongst his own tenantry!" We do not know at what moment the man standing at that Table to expound the principles of the Irish Government, and who is responsible for the proceedings of the Irish Government, will not be in collision with his own tenantry, whom the record of your own Commissioners show to be virtually in the right whilst he is altogether in the wrong. We are accused of personalities. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; I like to anticipate that argument. But, I would ask, how can we avoid being personal? I would ask, why did you put this Gentleman in this position? Do you mean that a man is to be made a Governor in a country, and to be given a potential voice in the management of the affairs of any country in a time like this, and that we are to be debarred from criticizing his antecedents and character? I do not wish to criticize his private character; but his dealings with his tenants, now that he is a Member of the Government, are no longer entitled to the cloak of privacy that usually covers a man's private affairs. When a gentleman takes an official post like that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, his dealings with his tenantry become matter of public interest. When a right hon. and gallant Gentleman places him-

167
self in this position, I say it is legitimate and fair argument on our part to discuss his dealings with his tenantry as we are discussing them; and I contend that the records of the late Commission show that it was a shameless act on the part of the Government to place this Gentleman in a responsible position in connection with the Government of Ireland. I do not know that I need speak at length on this point. I do not think there is a Member of this House now listening to me who does not agree with me in his heart. I do not believe that there is a Conservative opposite me who doe3 not believe that it was a deadly mistake for the Government to put by the side of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the management of Irish affairs in this House a man whose dealings with his tenantry your own Blue Book shows to be so questionable. Why did not the Government put down a Vote for this Gentleman in the Estimates? Why did they not challenge the opinion of the House before they entered upon this course? So far as my limited knowledge of Parliamentary proceedings goes, the course they have taken in regard to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's appointment is entirely unprecedented—that is to say, the course of nominating to the most responsible position in the Government—for the moment I know of no more responsible position than that which has to do with the government of Ireland—a Gentleman who has no salary, and whose nomination is thereby withdrawn from the control of Parliament and from criticism—or almost withdrawn from Parliamentary criticism—and is discussed, I may almost say, by the toleration of the Chair—I believe it to be almost unprecedented that they should create this Office, and put this right hon. and gallant Gentleman in his present position, without sending him back to his constituency, and without challenging the decision of Parliament; and I believe that by that action the Government have plainly indicated to this House and the country that they were ashamed to face debate on the character of this appointment. I do not propose, at this stage, to take up the time of the Committee any longer upon this matter; but, in my opinion, it would be impossible to exaggerate the difficulty that will arise if the Govern-
168
ment persist in carrying on the present system of replying to Irish Questions through the mouth of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. I do not think that they could adopt a method of striking a heavier blow at the Union between the two countries. [Laughter.] Hon. Members are perfectly at liberty to laugh, because I tell them honestly that I was extremely pleased at this appointment. It is the most stupid thing that an English Government over did—an English Government whose desire is to maintain the Union; and I warn the Government that while we shall continue, on every occasion, to protest against the appointment, I, for my own part, was rejoiced that they made the appointment, and shall not be a bit sorry if they stick to it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the attack which the hon. Gentleman has just made is upon the Chief Secretary and the Under Secretary, perhaps my hon. Friend who rose from the Bench behind me will allow me to interpose for a few minutes between him and the Committee. Before I go to the main body of the speech of the hon. Member opposite, perhaps I may allude to the subject which he began with, which had reference, if I recollect rightly, to the question of the salary of the present Permanent Under Secretary for Ireland? He told us that the salary of the late Permanent Under Secretary had been raised from £2,000 to £2,500 per annum on personal grounds; that those personal grounds had been continued to the present holder of the Office, and he asked for an explanation of the fact. Well, I may remind the hon. Gentleman that the present holder of the Office (Sir Redvers Buller) accepted the post very reluctantly on grounds of public duty, and not as a permanent appointment which he was going to hold for a great length of time, and that the salary is as personal to him as it was to his predecessor, and will not fail to be revised when the time comes for Sir Redvers Buller to retire. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to say that I did not earn the liberal salary which he seems to think I receive. I cannot help thinking that, through the whole of his speech, the hon. Gentleman seemed very hard to please. There are now two officials in this House responsible for the conduct of Irish affairs. There is the right hon.

169
and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. ["No, no!"] They object to me because I have too big a salary, and they object to my right hon. and gallant Friend because he has no salary at all; they object to me because I know too little of Ireland, and they object to my right hon. and gallant Friend because he knows too much of Ireland. I do not know how we can over succeed in striking a happy mean that will satisfy the fastidious tastes of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Then the hon. Gentleman reproached me with having been only four days——
MR. DILLON: No; three.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think he was wrong in his three. If I recollect rightly, I have been about a week there; but I will not quarrel over hours with him. The hon. Gentleman reproached me with having been only a few days in Ireland since I was appointed to my present Office. The hon. Gentleman forgets that my presence has, unfortunately, been required in this House almost continuously since that time. He complained bitterly that I am not here every day to answer Questions; but I want to know, if my absence for that short hour in the evening is so bitterly resented by the hon. Gentleman, how it would be possible for me, consistently with the limitation that regulates all one's movements—namely, of being able only to be in one place at a time—to be in Ireland and in my place in this House to carry on the serious duties that fall to my Office at the same time? I must say that the hon. Gentleman was a little hard on me in that respect. He began by criticizing the amount of the salary that the Chief Secretary receives; and having begun in that way he went on to say that, not only in this country, but throughout the civilized globe, there was not a single official who had placed on his shoulders duties of so difficult, delicate, and responsible a character as mine. I began to think, when I heard the hon. Gentleman make these remarks, that I was the least paid official in this country, and I fully expected him to finish his speech by a Motion to the effect that the salary should at least be doubled. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to attack me for not being in my place to answer Questions. [An hon. MEMBER: Coals!] When I occupy my present post through the winter, as
170
I hope to do, I shall be able to give the hon. Gentleman some information in regard to that particular item of my salary. At present I have no information as to the amount of coal which is required to be burned in the Chief Secretary's lodge. He complained of my not being in my place to answer Questions, and he said that it was perfectly necessary that I should be in my place at Question time, because Questions of great importance were asked, chiefly with regard to delicate and important controversies between landlords and tenants. Well, Sir, when he made that remark I took up the Order Paper for to-day, which I had not seen up to that moment, and glanced at the Questions, which I had not had an opportunity of looking at. [Ironical cheers.] Well, Questions I was under no necessity of looking at, because the duty of replying to them was undertaken by my right hon. and gallant Friend. I have looked through them, and I find that there were altogether 13 Questions asked of the Department over which I preside. I see that the first Question relates to the appointment of a monitor for the Annadown National School, County Down; the second Question refers to a new Loan Fund recently established at Ederney, County Fermanagh, on the application of a parish priest, and as to whether there is a Loan Fund at Kesh, two miles and five furlongs from Ederney, and another at Lack, three miles and four furlongs from the same; and whether these Loan. Funds do or do not come up to the proper regulations? Question No. 3 relates to the grounds upon which the Board of National Education made an order in February altering the status of the workmistress of the Aughiogan National School, County Tyrone; No. 4 relates to the further examination of a certain Miss Daly, of Milltown, County Tyrone, in view of the fact that her appointment has been already ratified by the Education Board; Question No. 5 relates to a line of tramway between Schull and Skibbereen; No. 6 refers to the same tramway line; No. 7 refers to the sanitary arrangements of the Monaghan District Lunatic Asylum—no doubt, a very proper Question; No. 8 has reference to the exclusive right of the ferryage of the Derry Bridge Commissioners across the River Foyle at Derry; No. 9 relates to two

171
large wings of the workhouse at Monaghan, at present occupied by the Monaghan Militia——
MR. CHANCE: Question No. 11, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, deals with the eviction of 65 families by landlords within the Monaghan Union.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am numbering the Questions myself. Question No. 10 deals with the Return showing the working of the Labourers' Acts (Ireland) Order for April 5, 1887; No. 11 refers to a Resolution of the Granard Guardians, protesting against delay in making a Provisional Order for a scheme of labourers' cottages; No. 12 deals with the reported drunkenness and neglect of duty of one Joseph Watt; and the 13th and last Question is with regard to an assault committed on a warder named M'Connell, in Mountjoy Prison, on the 9th instant, by two convicts.
MR. CHANCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give attention to Question No. 11 on the Paper, which he says relates to two large wings of the Monaghan Workhouse, but which really relates to certain landlords within the Monaghan Union having notified the Guardians of their intention to evict 65 families. [A laugh.]
MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: This is no laughing matter.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No doubt the Question referred indirectly to the eviction of 65 families. I have not had time to look at it very carefully; but it seems to mo that what the Question primarily referred to was the accommodation in two wings of the workhouse. The hon. Member appears to think that I am guilty of a great dereliction of the difficult and responsible duties which, at the beginning of his speech, he so eloquently described to us, by not coming down at half-past 4 in the evening and answering these Questions; but I do not care who it is that is Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, whether it is a person as totally ignorant of Irish affairs as the hon. Gentleman says I am—I do not know why he said that, because, though it is true that since I have been appointed Chief Secretary I have not spent a long time in Ireland, still the hon. Member will recollect that I have been now some 15 years in Parliament,
172
and during that time I have had the privilege and pleasure of listening to Irishmen for about four hours every night—either I must be very stupid—[An hon. MEMBER: So you are.]—either I must be very stupid, or hon. Members from Ireland must be obscure, if, during these 15 years' experience, I have obtained no knowledge whatever of the country which they so ably represent—I do not care who it is who has to answer Questions of the kind I have described—I do not care who the Chief Secretary is, whether he is as ignorant as I am myself, or whether he has had as intimate and perfect an acquaintance with the affairs of Ireland as had my Predecessor in Office who represents the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell - Bannerman), who is so indignant with me, or rather who has criticized, so far as criticism is possible, the conduct I pursued in transferring part of my duties to my right hon. and. gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet——
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN (, &c.): I did not express indignation.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, the right hon. Gentleman has criticized, so far as criticism is possible; but I would submit that in dealing with Questions such as the reported drunkenness and neglect of duty of a relieving officer, or an assault committed on a warder in a prison, or the examination of a work-mistress in a National School, whoever answers the Questions can only supply information derived direct from the localities. The official answering is, and must be, simply a means of transferring to Members of this House the information he has derived from the localities; and I venture to think that in the arrangement of Business between my right hon. and gallant Friend and myself, the public suffers no loss by my transferring to him the duty of replying to these Questions. Replying to these Questions takes up about an hour—from about half-past 4 to about half-past 5 o'clock. Suppose 20 Questions are asked of a Chief Secretary—and I think that was about the number the last time I attended to reply to them—it will take, perhaps, three minutes to answer each Question, an hour in all, which is not a very long time. There will be probably about 20 other Questions, so that about two

173
hours are spent every day in replying to these queries, which have not, as a rule, any bearing upon important controversies between landlord and tenant, but which relate solely to small local matters such as I have described. No doubt, they are very proper Questions to be put to the Government; but, at the same time, they are Questions to answer which does not require any very profound knowledge of the country to which they relate, or any very transcendant abilities to deal with them properly. Then the hon. Member attacked me for availing myself of the assistance of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, and I much regretted to hear him make several strong personal accusations against my right hon. and gallant Friend, which my right hon. and gallant Friend has already amply and fully refuted. The hon. Gentleman opposite must be aware that when he and his Friends adopted the plan of personal accusation against my right hon. and gallant Friend, my right hon. and gallant Friend—I think with becoming patience—did not condescend to answer them until, in the public interest, he was driven to do so a few days ago. Did the hon. Member opposite hear the observations made by my right hon. and gallant Friend on that occasion? Did he hear him explain that in 1881—I think that was the year——
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): Yes; that was the year.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Did he hear my right hon. and gallant Friend explain that in 1881, on a rental which I believe is more than £40,000, the whole difference from Griffith's valuation was not more than £100? And is the hon. Gentleman not aware that Griffith's valuation was made at a time when prices were lower than they are now? ["No, no!"] Yes; that is so—that Griffith's valuation was made at a time when prices were lower than they are now? And is he aware that Griffith's valuation was not made for the purpose of rental, but for the purposes of taxation, and, being made for purposes of taxation, was generally estimated to be not less than 25 per cent below the letting value of the land?
MR. CLANCY: Rubbish!
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hear the hon. Member use an argument familiar with hon. Members who sit below the Gangway opposite—he objects to my statement as "rubbish." I do not know which of my propositions he objects to as rubbish.
MR CLANCY: All of them.
Ms. A. J. BALFOUR: Does he mean to say that prices were not lower then than they are now? If he will take the trouble to look into the facts he will see that I am right. Does he deny that Griffith's valuation was made for the purposes of taxation, and not for the purpose of rental? Does he deny that, being made for the purposes of taxation, it was estimated at a figure below the letting value of the land? If he does not deny any of these things, and if he admits, as he must admit, that the rental of my right hon. and gallant Friend's estate is as I have said—if we are to condescend to discuss these personal matters—if he sees that my right hon. and gallant Friend's rental was within £100 of Griffith's valuation, or, in other words, that there was only a fractional difference between the two, will he not admit that my right hon. and gallant Friend cannot in any sense be justly accused of being a man who attempts to drive his tenants hard, or to exact from them more than they can be honestly expected to pay? I confess that I regard the attacks which have been made upon myself with perfect indifference. Every Chief Secretary for Ireland has to undergo attacks of that kind, and I am quite aware that if it were my lot—as probably it will not be—in two or three years' time to agree with hon. Members opposite on any matter upon which they have set their hearts, they would probably laud me with the same amount of eulogy which they accord to Lord Spencer and to Sir George Trevelyan, whom they attacked far more unscrupulously and violently than they have so far attacked myself. But I confess I regret the ground of attack that has been made on my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under Secretary. No man in this House knows more about Ireland than he does. No man in this House is more capable of effectively discharging the

175
duties of his Office; and if he is prepared to discharge those duties so far without reward, is that to be made a reproach to him, and ought it not to be regarded as an additional proof of the disinterested services he is ready to give to Ireland? The hon. Member opposite objects to my not being here to answer Questions. [An hon. MEMBER: We object to you altogether.] I do not appeal to him; but I appeal to other Members, in whatever quarter of the House they sit, to say whether my right hon. and gallant Friend has not discharged the duties of his Office, be they difficult or be they easy, to the satisfaction of every reasonable man? Whether he has not shown himself fully adequate to the discharge of every duty that has been intrusted to him? But I may tell the Committee that outside the House my right hon. and gallant Friend's services have been even greater than they have been inside, and my right hon. and gallant Friend has brought to the assistance of the Irish Government—and I am proud to acknowledge it in spite of the sneers of hon. Gentlemen opposite—an ability, an industry and knowledge, from which the Government derived great advantage, and which, at all events, I am glad hon. Members have given me an opportunity of acknowledging in my place.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN (, &c.): Sir, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has, to-night, surpassed himself. The object of the Government, I suppose, is to obtain this Vote on Account with as little difficulty and as little delay as possible. The right hon. Gentleman has made the speech to which we have just listened, and has made very light of his duties in this House. He has read over some of the Questions——
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: All of thorn.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: He has read over the Questions addressed to him by name by the Representatives of Irish constituencies, and he has found them one and all unworthy of the notice of so exalted a personage as the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. Gentleman has had Predecessors in that Office who have had quite as much on their hands as he has. I speak of the late Mr. Forster, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for one of the Divisions of Bristol, the right hon.
176
Gentleman's immediate Predecessor (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach)—I single them out, because they were at the same time Members of the Cabinet while they were Chief Secretaries for Ireland, which makes a material difference between their positions and that occupied by more humble persons, such as myself, who, when they held the Office of Chief Secretary, had not a place in the Cabinet. Mr. Forster and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol never, that I am aware, declined to answer Questions that were addressed to them by Irish Members in this House. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of himself or his Assistant in this House as the conduit-pipe for local information. He admits that he did not, until he rose to-night, look at the Paper to see what was on it, so that we shall know in the future, when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) rises to answer Questions, he does not speak in the name of the Chief Secretary or in that of the Irish Government, but merely in his own name. I have had myself some experience in answering Questions. I believe I had one day the heaviest list ever presented to any Irish Secretary, because I had to answer no fewer than 51 Questions. I will venture to tell the right hon. Gentleman what my experience was. I gave a great deal more than throe minutes' consideration to each of these Questions. The answers which were sent to me from Ireland were in many cases extremely unsatisfactory, and again and again I had to communicate with the officials who had furnished me with those answers. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] From watching that process again and again, grievances and evils were brought to my notice which I, in turn, had to consider and bring before my Chief—the then Viceroy Lord Spencer—and I can say honestly that I believe a great deal of good was done by the multitude of Questions put, although in this House they sometimes seemed excessive. The mere answering of a Question is not the only part of it. The object is to bring to any ordinary mind the fact of a certain grievance existing; but the right hon. Gentleman has proclaimed to the House to-night, as we might, indeed, have expected from his general manner and treatment of the subject, that he moves

177
in a sphere altogether above the consideration of these matters. Then, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the complaints that have been made of the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. I need hardly say that, on the personal part of that question, I have nothing to say. So far as answering Questions goes and his career as a Member of this House, I have nothing to say whatever against that right hon. and gallant Gentleman; but when hon. Members complain of his being appointed to take the place of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, not occasionally, but habitually and every day, what occurs to most of us is this—that although that treatment of the subject may be very suitable for Irish Questions, it would not be tolerated for one moment with regard to English Questions. What would be said if, I will say, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty were day after day to answer all the Questions addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and then, when the Questions were all over, the House were to see the First Lord come in with a jaunty air and take his seat on the Treasury Bench? Why, Sir, there is no one on the other side of the House who would consider that a tolerable arrangement for one week, although if the First Lord wore ill or absent from an unavoidable cause, it would, of course, be the commonest thing in the world that his subordinate should answer the Questions for him. But not only is that the case, but the officer who has to answer the Questions is unpaid, or, in other words, has been appointed to his present position without the knowledge or consent of Parliament. There is a very strict limit set upon the number of officials who can sit in Parliament receiving salary. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) will say that this does not exempt him from the power of adding to the number of officials who do not receive salaries. Well, Sir, that may be the technical excuse, but I do not think there is much real foundation in it. If a Member of this House is appointed to even a subordinate place in the Government, though he receives no salary, he has emolument—surely his emolument does not entirely consist, of salary. He has the honour of sitting on the Treasury Bench, which, of itself, is
178
much coveted, and he has all the dignity and importance attached to a Member of Her Majesty's Government, and I see nothing to hinder the Government, on the same footing, appointing 40 or 50 of their followers subordinate Members of the Government, and thus completely getting round all the guarantees that have been laid down by the rules which at present govern these matters. These are the reasons why we find the present arrangement very extraordinary. But it adds to the singularity of the situation when we find that at the same moment that there is this double arrangement in the House of Commons it so happens that there is also a double arrangement in the House of Lords, and that the Government have, for the first time, I believe, not only a Chief Secretary in the Cabinet, but a Lord Chancellor for Ireland in the Cabinet, and that Lord Chancellor, the only reason for whose position in the Cabinet one would take to be that he should represent the Government in the House of Lords, does not represent the Government in the House of Lords, but another Member of the Cabinet is appointed for the duty. The result is that there are three Members of the Cabinet representing Ireland, two in the House of Lords and one in this House, and; in addition to these, we have the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. These are the reasons why it does appear to us that this is a very extraordinary arrangement; and I cannot say that these reasons have been at all obviated or diminished in our minds by the speech which has just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have been greatly edified by the excitement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The complaint of the right hon. Gentleman is that the affairs of Ireland have been looked after by more Members of the present Government than has been the case under preceding Governments. The complaint that has been made by hon. Members opposite is, that it appears to the present Government that the interests of Ireland are of such great importance that not only the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), but an Assistant Secretary, the Lord

179
Privy Seal, and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland have interested themselves and have concerned themselves deeply in endeavouring—[Laughter.] I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether it is fitting that the laughter of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite should meet a statement—a statement which I am making with the endeavour to recall Parliament to the consideration of the real facts of the case? The Government appreciate the gravity of the circumstances, and the condition of Ireland at the present time. We have felt that any intellect, any skill, and any ability which we possess ought to be devoted to the solution of the great problems which the government of Ireland involves. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland is at the present moment engaged in the consideration and preparation of two most important measures relating to Ireland; and he felt it necessary, and the Government felt it necessary, that he should be assisted by my right hon. and gallant Friend on my left, who brings to his help a knowledge of the circumstances and of the condition of Ireland which hon. Members below the Gangway may not accept as being accurate from their point of view, but which is, of course, of great value in the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. What is the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman opposite? The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that because neither Mr. Forster nor Sir George Trevelyan had an Assistant Secretary, therefore it is highly improper that the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary should have an Assistant Secretary.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: The complaint was that the present Chief Secretary hands over the duty of answering all the Irish Questions to his Assistant Secretary.
MR. W. H. SMITH: Hands over the duty of answering all the Irish Questions to his Assistant Secretary. Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that the Government are responsible for every answer that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gives? The right hon. Gentleman must be fully aware that the Government are just as much responsible for the answers that are given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Assistant Secretary as they are for those given by the Chief
180
Secretary himself. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, when Chief Secretary himself, was not in the Cabinet, and yet his Government were bound by his answers.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I, at all events, was Chief Secretary.
MR. W. H. SMITH: But the right hon. Gentleman was not at the time a Member of the Cabinet. He spoke only with the authority of Chief Secretary; but, nevertheless, his answers bound his Government. Well, the Assistant Secretary represents the Chief Secretary, and binds the Chief Secretary.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The very thing we complain of.
MR. W. H. SMITH: We are asked whether we are going to appoint 40 or 50 Members of this Party to be Assistant Secretaries. Does the right hon. Gentleman really moan to ask such a question as that in good faith? No, Sir; he takes advantage, or he thinks he takes advantage—he does not really take advantage, because it is a remark which really recoils on himself—of circumstances and conditions that are absolutely abnormal. We have endeavoured to do our best to provide for the good government of the country, and have made what arrangements we believed to be necessary. We have come to the conclusion that some assistance must be given to the Chief Secretary, in order to enable him to give due consideration to the preparation and the submission to Parliament of measures which we deem to be of the utmost importance to the peace, the prosperity, and the happiness of Ireland. Of those measures there are two now before Parliament, and a third is in preparation; and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, never having had to produce such measures, has no idea of the amount of labour and of responsibility that the preparation of those measures involves. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that Parliament had no notice of the appointment of my right hon. and gallant Friend to the Office of Assistant Secretary; but the fact is that Parliament had ample knowledge of it.
MR. M. J. KENNY: Ample notice of the fact?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Ample notice that such an appointment was made; and Parliament knew that it was entirely within the competence of Her

181
Majesty's present Government, or of any other Government who felt it to be their duty, to make such an appointment. I must point to a fact that the right hon. Gentleman opposite is well aware of—namely, that even if the Office to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been appointed had been a paid one, it would not have been necessary that the right hon. Gentleman should have vacated his seat, the post not being one that renders it necessary for the holder to go to his constituents for re-election on his accepting it. With regard to answering Questions, as I have indicated, my right hon. and gallant Friend, in replying to Questions, speaks with the full authority of the Government in giving complete replies to every Question which may fairly be put to the Members of the Government. I fully recognize the responsibility of the Government in answering Questions by whomsoever they may be asked; but, while making proper provision for the answering of Questions, the Government have to discharge the higher duty of seeing that their measures are properly considered and presented to Parliament.
MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that no one for a moment impugns the motives of the Government in making this appointment. The question for the Committee is whether the Government have acted Constitutionally and in accordance with the law of Parliament in making it. When the right hon. Gentleman pleads in justification of the appointment the abnormal state of affairs existing at the present time, and that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has on his shoulders 'two important Bills—that is to say, the Coercion, and, I suppose, the other is the Land Bill now before the House of Lords—I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Forster, when Chief Secretary, had on his shoulders not only the preparation and passing through Parliament of a Coercion Bill, but also of a great Land Bill; and that the work devolving on the Chief Secretary in those days was certainly as heavy as that devolving upon the present Chief Secretary to-day. I should be sorry if this question assumed anything of a personal character. I certainly do not consider the Chief Secretary over-paid, because I
182
consider that there is only one post in Europe which, for the anxiety and responsibility it entails, could compare with that of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the position of the Czar of Russia. The right hon. Gentleman may very well say that no compensation can be too high for the responsibility, the anxiety, and the vexation of his Office, whoever fills it, whether a Member of the Party sitting opposite, or sitting on this side of the House. But what I wish to ask the Committee is—and this appears to be a favourable opportunity for doing it, an opportunity for which one has hitherto sought in vain—whether the appointment of the Under Secretary for Ireland is a Constitutional one or not?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it would be appropriate to raise that question.
MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I bow, of course, to your ruling, Sir; but as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has attempted to justify the appointment I wished to enter a protest upon the point. I will not pursue the matter one sentence further. I should have been glad of an opportunity of saying that I consider that the creation of any new Office under the Crown, whether or not its acceptance involved the vacating of a seat in this House—for I do not lay stress on that point—without the consent of Parliament is un-Constitutional. As, however, you rule, Sir, that it is not competent for me to go into the question at this moment, I will say no more with regard to it, but will take another opportunity of calling attention to it.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: The speeches we have listened to from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, more than any other speeches which we have heard from the Tory Party for some time, show the appropriateness of the name applied to them of "the stupid Party." Both right hon. Gentlemen, in the course of their speeches, occupied a considerable time in sounding the praises of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Assistant Under Secretary—or Under Secretary—whatever he may be called. One would think, from the speech of the Chief Secretary, that the duties of the right hon.

183
and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) has to discharge in this House are duties of the utmost importance, and that he discharges them with an amount of ability which must command the confidence and admiration of this Assembly. Now, what are the duties, so far as we can see, which have been discharged by that right hon. and gallant Gentleman? Why, the merest schoolboy of a few years' experience would be able to do that which the two Leaders of the Tory Party in this House so loudly praise the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet for doing. His duties, so far as we can see, consist in his standing there at the Table and reading out to us answers prepared for him by some police constable or other official in Ireland. That is the only exercise of his extraordinary powers that we have seen in this House; and, certainly, I do not think the Government are to be complimented on the fact of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's addition to their ranks. They comfort themselves with the idea that they have got, in the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet, a real acquisition; but, as I have said, he is no more valuable to them than would be a schoolboy of a year's experience. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in the manner in which he treated the Questions put by the Irish Members in this House to-night, has furnished another proof that the suspicion which was in the minds of hon. Members on this side of the House, and which was given expression to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), is amply justified—namely, that he is determined to treat with contempt the elected Representatives of the people of Ireland, and therefore he has refrained from being in his place when Questions affecting Ireland have been before the House. We do not complain of having to deal with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, as compared with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. What we complain of is that the official who replies to us is not responsible to this House or to Parliament. We contend that he should not be a mere instrument of the Government, but should be able to give effect to the answers he gives us. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the
184
Chief Secretary, standing up at the Table, in the course of his speech tonight, has shown us that so long as these Questions have been answered by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet they have been answered altogether on his own responsibility, and the responsibility of the officials in Ireland, and that the officials in this House, to whom we are to look for redress of grievances and abuses in Irish Governmental Departments, is altogether ignorant of the representations we make. The right hon. Gentleman treats with supreme contempt—with a contempt that is, if possible, more offensive than his whole bearing upon Irish matters—the Questions that are asked by Irish Members. The right hon. Gentleman pretends to have some knowledge of Ireland. We complain that while before we could very well afford to stand his ignorance of Ireland and Irish affairs, because it did not affect us, that now he is the one officer who is responsible for Irish affairs he keeps out of the House when Questions are being asked, and he never can have any knowledge of the facts to which these Questions relate. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he made a great point when he said that if, in a few years hence, he should become a convert to our opinions upon the Home Rule Question, we should be likely to praise him just as we praised former Chief Secretaries for Ireland. I can re-assure the right hon. Gentleman on that point. We always know how to make a distinction between men who understand their duties and stick to them, however disagreeable they may be, and men who run away from them. We have often opposed Irish Secretaries, but even when we differed most from them we have seldom had to deny them the possession of courage and the possession of a sense of duty. But even if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary should become a convert to our opinions, unless he changes his policy he will never be able to get the credit of having stuck to his post. He has found it very convedient to get as a substitute a political Cerberus in the person of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. I must say we had very little confidence in the knowledge which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary brings to bear on Irish

185
subjects; but if there is one man in Ireland whom no Chief Secretary could afford to stand up and justify before the Irish people, that man is the right hon. Gentleman's Colleague the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, one of the rack-renting landlords of Ireland. It is an insult to the Irish representation and to the Irish people that the Chief Secretary should shelter himself behind such a personage in this House, and excuse himself from giving to the work of the Department to which he belongs and to the Irish people the benefit of qualities for the possession of which, presumably, he was appointed. The right hon. Gentleman has given us some figures as to the rental of the estate of his right hon. and gallant Colleague. I do not wish to dwell on that subject—I should be out of Order if I did; but I do not think we should not allow the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman to pass unchallenged. He stated, on information, no doubt, received from his right hon. and gallant Colleague, that in 1881 there was only £100 difference between the entire rental of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's property and the gross Government valuation. Well, but all the property in the hands of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and all that which he farms himself, is taken from the rental, but is left in in the valuation which is given. That makes a very important difference. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman does not stand up to challenge that statement. Is the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary aware that, by the information which is supplied to him, and which he gives to the House, English Members are deceived in these matters? On the strength of assurances and untruths supplied to him, he stands up and deceives the House. Then there is another important matter. Numbers of holdings on this property were let before it came into the possession of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet, and were let on fines that were extorted from the tenants.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. and learned Member is in Order in imputing untruths to a Member of this House? I wish to explain that no fines
186
have been taken on my property for three generations.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and learned Member does impute untruth to any other Member he is distinctly out of Order.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTONwas understood to disclaim having imputed untruth to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman distinctly used the word "untruth."
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I distinctly stated that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gave to the Chief Secretary this statement—that there was only a difference of £100 between the rental of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the valuation of his property; but that he omitted to state that the amount of the property in his own hands was included in the valuation, while no rental was allowed for; and that in this way the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was put in a position to state an untruth to the House.
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I am in the recollection of the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman distinctly said that I had stated an untruth.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman disavows any such statement.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I never said anything of the kind. If I had made the statement I have now made to the House in the absence of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, I have no doubt that hon. Members on the other side would have got up and denied what I have stated. But now I congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he has, by his challenge, emphasized the important difference I have pointed out, and also the manner in which the House has been deceived. Then there is another point. While part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's estate is held at low rents by large graziers, who have extensive tracts of the estate, he has raised the rents of the smaller tenants on the other portions of his estate as often and as much as he could raise them. That is the state of facts of which he has been proved guilty by the Sub-Commissioners. I will read to the House some of the

187
rentals on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's estate, with the reductions that have been made.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member himself, at the begining of his remarks, seemed to feel that he was going beyond the Question in entering into details, and yet he now proposes to go into matters only very remotely connected with the Vote before the Committee. It would be quite out of Order to enter into the details he proposes to state.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I will only give the sum total of the rentals, and the valuation on a single page of the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners. Now, upon one page of these decisions I find the Poor Law valuation is £584. The gross rental was £658, and that rent was reduced from £658 to £392. That is the model landlord who is held up to our admiration by the Chief Secretary; and when we are told by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that the reason for the absence of the Chief Secretary from the House is that he is hatching important measures relating to the holding of land in Ireland, we have an idea of the spirit in which he will approach the question from the character as a landlord which he has given to his Colleague. Now, my reason for objecting to the manner in which we have been treated in regard to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) is this—that I look on his appointment as a reward for political recreancy alone. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary an assurance that, at all events, there was no danger that he would come over to our opinions on the Home Rule Question. Will he give us the same assurance with equal confidence in regard to his Colleague? He is an older Home Ruler than I am. He was a Home Ruler long before I could say a word on the subject. Lately I possessed myself of the minutes of the Home Rule League—the minutes of their various meetings with the strong resolutions they passed.
THE CHAIRMAN: One portion of this Vote is for the salary of the Chief Secretary. He has devolved a certain part of his duties on the Under Secretary, and that is properly a subject of criticism. But as the right hon. and
188
gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet is not provided for out of the Vote his character and conduct are not the subject for criticism.
MR. DILLON: On what Vote or in what manner are we to discuss the way in which the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet discharges his duties?
THE CHAIRMAN: The discharge of his duties in this House does become matter for criticism; but his character and past career as a Home Ruler do not become matter for criticism.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: Now, I shall not dwell further on this subject, which I know cannot be a very pleasant one to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet or for the Government. I hope we shall have some opportunity for voting a salary to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in order that on the Vote for his salary we may show his Colleagues what manner of man he was. I will now only finish by saying that I believe the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has treated the House in regard to important Irish Questions is the most instructive lesson which has been given to the people of Ireland, and also to the people of England, for a considerable time. As the hon. Member who has preceded me in this debate has remarked, no Member of the Government would attempt to treat any other portion of Her Majesty's Dominions with the same contempt with which Ireland has been treated by the right hon. Gentleman. He cannot deny that he has constantly remained away from the House while Irish Questions are treated at Question time, and that he has delegated the performance of his duty in regard to answering Questions to a Colleague who is altogether irresponsible to us and to this House. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman persists in the course he has lately taken, and if he persists in showing the same contempt which he has recently displayed for Irish Questions, it will be the duty of the Irish Members to take every opportunity to drag before the people of this country the manner in which Ireland is being treated at a time when you insist on the people of Ireland keeping themselves associated with the Union.
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I am only going to

189
touch very lightly on one or two points to which the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down (Mr. T. C. Harrington) alluded, because he somewhat challenged me to do so; while, at the same time, he charged me with not being frank in the statement I made to the House the other day. There is one point in that statement in regard to which the hon. and learned Member seems to think that he has hit a blot, and which certainly needs explanation. That is that, in my statement as to the relative income and valuation of my estate, I did not include in the income my demesne and other land actually in hand. I thought that a matter of no importance in dealing with a large property of over 75,000 acres. The matter was so exceedingly small that I did not include the land referred to. Then, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the rents as they existed in 1881 were rents fixed by my ancestors. Well, they were, and they were never raised by me. Therefore, I think it is for the credit both of my ancestors and myself that, as he has himself stated, those rents were below Griffith's valuation. Then the hon. and learned Member took up the Blue Book, and read one page to show the reduction of rent on one part of my property in the county of Longford; and he implied that I had raised my rents in the county of Longford. Upon my honour I never raised any rents in the county of Longford; and upon my honour I spent £24,000 in 1879, 1880, and 1881—the years of the famine—on my property in the county of Longford on which these tenants resided, and for that outlay of £24,000 I never received, and I never charged, one penny of interest.
MR. M. J. KENNY: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet has just stated that from 1879 to 1881 he spent£24,000 on his estates in the county of Longford, which he borrowed from the Government at a nominal rate of interest—[Mr. T. C. HARRINGTON: He never expended it.]—and which there was reason to believe was not as fully expended as it had been liberally lent.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must withdraw, and apologize for that statement and accusation.
MR. M. J. KENNY: I only repeated an accusation which has been made; but as you, Sir, have ruled that the ob-
190
servation I made was out of Order, I withdraw it accordingly and apologize for it. I will only say that I regret that I had not an opportunity to state in this House what I believe to be the facts of the case with regard to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. This is the first case in the history of the Irish Secretaryship in which we are placed in the position of having a nominal Chief Secretary who receives a considerable salary and does nothing in this House except jibe and flout, in pinchbeck imitation of one of his family, at the Questions of the Irish Members; and in the most supercilious manner possible meets our statements and charges with an affectation of absolute contempt. We are fully determined that we shall press for an explanation as to the appointment of this Under Secretary who has been put into the position he now occupies, and who resembles what is called in Ireland a species of "potheenboy"—one who does the dirty work of the Chief Secretary. I have heard that the Chinese used to be in the habit of flinging malodorous grenades at the enemy to prevent them advancing, and I believe the appointment of the present Parliamentary Under Secretary has been made in the same spirit, and with the same intention of flinging something malodorous before the Irish Members so that they cannot attack the Government of the day. I think, however, before the Government have got to the end of their tether, they will find that they have not gained much by appointing an ornamental Chief Secretary and an Orange Under Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said, a few minutes ago, that we should be likely to speak in the same manner of him, if he changed his opinions, that we do of Lord Spencer, now that he has changed his opinions. I cannot, however, conceive the possibility of comparison between the two men. I can conceive no manner of mental or moral measurement which would bring the two men together. I do not know how it is possible to compare or measure against each other a giant like Lord Spencer and a pigmy like the present Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary commenced his reply to the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) by reading some Questions, and asking whether he could be expected to answer such Questions.

191
Well, two of those Questions were put down by Orange Members who support his policy, and I question whether the Orange Democrats who sent those Members to this House would appreciate the supercilious tone adopted by the Chief Secretary towards their Parliamentary Representatives in this House. I do not know whether we shall have any regular opportunity of raising the question of the appointment of the present Under Secretary. I have heard it stated that the present Under Secretary, though nominally unpaid, is a fairly well-remunerated official. I have heard it stated that the present Chief Secretary is content to accept a portion of his nominal salary, and that the remainder is distributed as a gratuity to those who discharge some of his Parliamentary functions.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The statement or conjecture just made is entirely, absolutely, and totally unfounded.
An hon. MEMBER: More shame for it.
MR. M. J. KENNY: If the right hon. Gentleman had done as I have suggested, it would have been no more than reasonable and just. I would remind the Committee that we have in this House, besides the Chief Secretary and this notable Under Secretary, two Law Officers of the Crown—one who takes some part in discussing a portion of the clauses of the Bill now before the House, while the other has done nothing for his official position. Formerly, when the Chief Secretary was absent from this House, the Law Officers have answered Questions. What I want to know is this—why two Irish lawyers, who have as much knowledge of the Irish people as the Under Secretary for Ireland, and have not, like him, been brought into conflict with the Irish people on questions relating to the land, who are, at least, as intelligent as the Parliamentary Under Secretary, and have had the benefit of a legal training, which he has not had—I say I want to know why these Gentlemen, who are responsible to this House and the country, because they are paid for the discharge of their duties, have not been put into requisition, and called upon to discharge the duties which in former times have been discharged by the Law
192
Officers? The appointment of a Parliamentary Under Secretary now is extraordinary. In former times the Parliamentary Under Secretaryship was a political appointment, and was only held while the Government by whom the holder was appointed retained Office. I believe in the time of Thomas Drummond the appointment was altogether political. That system is, it appears, to be again introduced. But it must not be forgotten that we have now a so-called Permanent Under Secretary in Dublin, as well as a Political Under Secretary in this House. When that Permanent Under Secretary goes back to the War Office, will the two Offices be amalgamated? That is what we want to know. But, in the meantime, we must protest against the appointment of an Orangeman without salary, and, therefore, irresponsible to this House. I will only say, further, that the appointment seems to have been made on the old principle of setting one Irishman against another, so that Englishmen may then go about the country saying—"See how these Irishmen agree in the House of Commons; what will they do at home?"
MR. DILLON: I rise to move the reduction of this Vote by £1,000, as a protest against the manner in which the Chief Secretary for Ireland declines—and says that he will decline—to discharge his duty. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is utterly wrong in supposing that I quarrel with the amount of his salary. I did indeed, in the early part of the evening, say something about the amount proposed to be voted to him for coals; but with his salary I have no quarrel, provided his duties are satisfactorily discharged. What I quarrel with is the way in which he is discharging the duties of his Office; and, therefore, to enable the Committee to protest against this, I propose, as I have said, to move that this Vote be reduced by £1,000. I do not find fault with the fact that the Chief Secretary has called in help to assist him in discharging the very onerous duties of his position. I do not quarrel with any Irish Secretary for calling in the help of one or two officials in this House. On the contrary, I think the Irish Chief Secretary would do very well if he got a suitable Assistant in this House, and then went himself to Dublin for the next three months. And if he

193
had a man in this House who would decently answer Questions under his directions, I would not complain if he remained at Dublin. But what I quarrel with is the character of the help that the Chief Secretary has called in. I do not, Sir, propose to quarrel with your ruling as to the limits of this discussion; but I may be permitted to point out that your ruling has only emphasized the scandalous inconvenience of the course pursued by the Government. They have sought to create a new Office at a most critical time, and they have appointed to this Office a Gentleman whose antecedents utterly disqualify him for the Office he has been appointed to fill. And they have done this in such a manner that it is difficult to see how we can raise the question of the fitness of this Gentleman to discharge the duties of his Office, though it is impossible to contend that we should not be able to raise that question in some shape or way. I do not, Sir, wish to come into collision with your ruling; but I may be allowed to point out a few particulars in which, I think, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is singularly and peculiarly unfitted to fill the Office in which he is now placed. I wish to direct the attention of the House, in the first place, to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), because I think they were very unfortunate. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government wore actuated in this appointment by a desire to assist the present Chief Secretary for Ireland in the preparation and conduct of two or three important measures which are now before Parliament, and which they deem essential to the preservation of peace and order in Ireland. Now, I consider that to be a most ominous declaration on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. We supposed before this that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a kind of assistant to the Chief Secretary for an hour in the evening; but now we are told that he is a Member of the Irish Cabinet, and is appointed to give advice as to measures of importance in connection with Ireland.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; the First Lord of the Treasury did not say that. The Parliamentary Under Secre-
194
tary is not a Member of any Irish Cabinet.
MR. DILLON: Of course I spoke metaphorically. When I used the expression, "Irish Cabinet," I meant the Body that controls and directs Irish Business. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury distinctly stated that the chief object of calling the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) to the position he now occupies was, that he should assist the Government with his knowledge of Ireland and with his advice in modelling great measures to be laid before Parliament. In my ears that was a most ominous declaration, because it amounted to this, that not only were we, in the future, to look to the influence of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Thanet Division of Kent in the administration of the law in Ireland, but even in the shaping of Irish legislation in this House he was to be behind the scenes. Having that in my mind, there are certain things that have occurred in Ireland quite recently, which, in view of these facts, are exceedingly interesting. Within the last fortnight a practice has been revived in Ireland which has been renounced for three years, the practice of calling what are known as Rival Loyalist demonstrations in Ulster for the purpose of suppressing liberty of speech; and it is a most singular and ominous thing that the revival of that practice should have synchronized with the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has now a potential voice in Irish affairs—our memory has been refreshed in regard to this subject by a speech which Sir George Trevelyan has delivered this evening in London. Sir George Trevelyan reminded his hearers of the time when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Thanet Division of Kent denounced him and Lord Spencer for giving protection to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), when be attempted to address meetings in the North of Ireland; and Sir George Trevelyan went on to say that the Coercion Bill was framed for the suppression of the National League. The House will see how that bears on the condition of Ireland at the present moment. When a meeting is summoned to protest

195
against the Coercion Bill, the Orangemen call a counter demonstration; the Executive denounces both meetings, and the people of Ulster are not allowed to express their opinion at all upon the Bill. A man whose past career entitles us to suspect that he is at this hour in collusion with these very Orange Societies in Ulster is now a great power in the control of the Executive; and, for aught we know, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland may be telling the masters of the Orange Lodges in Ulster to summon these counter meetings for the purpose of preventing a legitimate expression of opinion in regard to the policy of the Government. Is this a state of things that ought to be tolerated? This is the reason why the political actions of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Thanet Division of Kent are brought under discussion. We are desirous of showing that we are justified in the suspicions and fears which we entertain as to what his conduct will be in the future. I think I have established some case for holding the right hon. and gallant Gentleman more or less responsible for these proceedings in the Province of Ulster. I put it to the House—to hon. Members of all shades of political opinion—Can there be a more unkind or cruel mode of proceeding than to proclaim legitimate meetings, and thus suppress the right of freedom of speech at a most critical time, simply because the Orangemen put out placards announcing rival demonstrations. This is the very thing which Lord Spencer moved armies into Ulster to prevent.
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I may say at once that there is not the slightest word of foundation for the suggestion.
MR. DILLON: There is not the slightest word of foundation for what suggestion?
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: For the suggestion that I have encouraged the Orangemen to call counter demonstrations.
MR. DILLON: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that there is not the slightest word of foundation for the suggestion that the policy of Lord Spencer in this respect has been departed from, and that there is an end of liberty of speech in Ulster; and does he mean
196
to say that that has not taken place since he came into Office, and that now the Orangemen are entitled to boast, as they did not dare to boast when Lord Spencer was in Ireland, that a Nationalist meeting cannot be held in Ulster? Does he deny that he denounced Lord Spencer for the action he took in protecting Nationalist meetings in Ulster?
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Yes, I do.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now travelling beyond the lines of the subject before the Committee.
MR. DILLON: Well, Mr. Courtney, I submit to your ruling; but I think the Government will show very scant consideration to the feelings of the people of Ireland if they refuse to give us some opportunity of discussing fully and fairly this appointment. It is at least unusual to make an appointment of this kind, surrounded as it is with circumstances of suspicion, at such a time; and to do it in such a way that by the technical ruling of the Chair we are robbed of our right of discussing it fully and fairly is, to say the least of it, striking below the belt. Of course, I will not pursue that branch of the subject further. I think I am entitled, however, before I sit down to answer three questions that were put directly to me or to the hon. Members who sit on these Benches by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I shall confine myself as closely as I can to the direct answers to the questions put and challenges given. I shall not enter into the details connected with those questions. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary asked me if I denied that Griffith's valuation of the property of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet was made when prices were much lower. I do deny it. He asked me if I denied that Griffith's valuation being made for purposes of taxation was made below the actual value? I do deny it. And, further, he asked me whether, in view of the statement of fact made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, that Gentleman could be described as a landlord who acted harshly and unjustly to his tenants? I say yes; and I say that the proofs and records of the Commission show that in many parts of Ireland the rent as fixed by Griffith's valuation

197
is at the present time double what it would be if a fair rent were fixed. I say, moreover, that a man who continues to charge double rents as long as he is allowed is unfitted to be made responsible for the government of Ireland; and while I do not contend that the Chief Secretary can be justly described as the worst landlord in Ireland, I do distinctly believe that he has acted harshly and unjustly to his tenants, and that he would to-day but for the intervention of the Courts of Law, be charging many of them double the value of their land.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,829,300, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Dillon.)
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I do not rise to continue this discussion in any controversial spirit, but merely to reassure hon. Members upon one or two points. It seems to appear to them that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet occupies a different position from other Under Secretaries, that he has a greater share in the administration of the Irish Department than they have in the administration of their respective Departments. I can assure the hon. Member that that view of the position of my right hon. and gallant Friend is not correct. The other question was with regard to the meetings in Ulster. That is a question which deserves the attention of the Government, and I can promise that it shall have my careful consideration.
MR. CHANCE: A discussion of this kind places us in a very inconvenient position. The Government have the great advantage of being able to tell the whole of their case; but when we attempt to answer the questions which they have raised, we are, unfortunately, by the Rules of Debate, more or less out of Order. I always listen, with pleasure to any remark that may fall from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He usually leaves a record behind him, and gives us material for further observations. He has done so in the present instance. He has told us that we complain of his salary. I am perfectly unaware of any observations of ours to
198
that effect. He says that his duties are onerous and difficult. We admit that. But we must also say that, while we do not think his salary too large for any Gentleman who adequately discharges the duties imposed upon him, we think it is too large when those duties are inefficiently performed. In the course of his observations, the right hon. Gentleman referred to our complaint that he is so often absent from his place in the House, and said that, inasmuch as we, at the same time, complained of his continued absence from Dublin, we were taking up an inconsistent position. Well, what are the facts? He is not in Ireland, and he is not in the House, except when he comes down to flout and gibe at these Benches on the Coercion Bill, or to assist the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in the pleasant occupation of shutting our mouths with the closure. We would not object to him being in Ireland; but at present he seems to be in some place of which we know nothing. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said that, so far, the Under Secretary has received no reward. That implies that he will eventually receive some reward. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] I only hope that whatever that remuneration is it will be given rapidly, in order that we may have an opportunity of raising fairly and squarely the whole subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made one observation which was very alarming in its character. He said that the Questions on the Paper for this evening had reference solely to small local matters. But he omitted all reference to one of those Questions until twice, in a rather marked manner, I drew attention to it. It was Question No. 11, in which an hon. Member asked him whether certain landlords within the Monaghan Union had notified to the Guardians their intention of evicting 65 families forthwith? I only draw attention to this because we were informed by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that the replies of the Under Secretary were given on behalf of the Government, and immediately afterwards the Chief Secretary told us that his right hon. and gallant Friend was not a responsible Member of the Irish Administration. The Chief Secretary must recollect that we have no representative whatever in Ireland, and

199
that we have no means whatever of getting at the ears of any person there who knows about these matters. A very long experience on these Benches has shown hon. Members that applying to Permanent Officials is absolutely fruitless. We have been told that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet has discharged his duties in a satisfactory manner. I presume the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was not in the House some days ago when the Question of the evictions on Lord Granard's estate was asked. I should like to know if the manner in which that Question was answered is considered by the Chief Secretary to be consistent with a satisfactory discharge of duty? The Committee will recollect that upon that occasion the right hon. and gallant Member stated that the Ecclesiastical Authorities were responsible for those evictions; and he went on to answer a further Question in a manner which made a distinct impression upon the mind of the House that those Ecclesiastical Authorities were so responsible. I denied that statement, and I was supported in my denial by the noble Lord himself. I shall be surprised to hear that a statement of that kind meets with the admiration of the Chief Secretary. What I want to point out is this—we have had some considerable experience of Government officials, and in this House we have seen Members of the Government defend in unmeasured language Permanent Officials who afterwards turned out to be criminals of a disgusting character. We warn the right hon. Gentleman that if he makes himself the champion of all the officials of Dublin Castle they will drag him down with them. If he believes everything they say they will go from excess to excess; but if he would make some effort to get information for himself, and not depend entirely upon the officials, good results might be hoped for.
DR. KENNY: The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) were amply justified, if only by the one item extracted from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I refer to the underhand suppression of Nationalist meetings in Ulster, a practice which has been revived in so suspicious a manner by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet
200
(Colonel King-Harman). The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said that the subject was under the consideration of the Government, and I hope that when the next Orange meeting is called for the purpose of enabling some local magistrate to go and swear an information that two meetings near each other are to be held and are likely to lead to a breach of the peace, the second meeting will be suppressed, and those who attempted to hold the first meeting will not be interfered with. Irish Members are compelled to put Questions on matters of trifling importance to the Chief Secretary, because there is no permanent official in Ireland amenable to public opinion. In England such officials know that any malfeasance in office will be visited severely by public opinion, and this knowledge is a powerful factor in restraining them from committing any excesses. That is not the case in Ireland. There an official does not look upon himself as a servant of the public, but as the master of the public. That is one reason why we put Questions in this House, on what appear to the philosophical mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to be small and trivial subjects. No doubt it may be annoying to him to have to come down to this House and answer Questions on such matters; but he is paid for it, and I think he ought not to employ a journeyman to do the work for him. Certainly, if he does employ a journeyman he ought to employ one who knows his trade. The appointment of the Under Secretary is an admirable ex-ample of the manner in which the Government of Ireland is conducted. If the Government had not been infected with the usual ineptitude which followed the footsteps of those who attempt to govern Ireland against her will, they would have seen that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet was the last man in the world who should have been chosen for a post of this kind. There is not a man who is looked upon with greater suspicion than one with such a record. I remember the career of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I remember taking a very humble part in some of the contests in which he has been engaged. I think that one of the first subscriptions I ever gave was to a fund for his election expenses when he was a

201
Home Rule candidate. I would just refer to the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has repudiated with great heat, and possibly with a great deal of justification, the imputation of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) about the money he received for his estates. I would point out that my hon. Friend only repeated an assertion which has been publicly made in Ireland, and which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not contradict.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is well aware that I stopped the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone from entering into that subject.
DR. KENNY: Then, Sir, I will not enter into that. I must, however, protest against the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has treated the Irish Members. The right hon. Gentleman has treated us with the most supercilious indifference. He is not entitled to adopt towards us the attitude and the manner which he is very much in the habit of adopting here. If he did not do so he would not require so often to seek protection under the wing of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), who is always ready to come forward in his best Mrs. Gampmanner on behalf of his Friends in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would, also, have much more time to give to those studies in which he appears to be so much wrapped up, if he would take more trouble to inform himself on the points to which inquiries are directed in this House, and would take some steps to curb the pride of officials in Ireland.
SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I rise for the purpose of appealing to the Committee that this long and painful discussion should be brought to a close. I would make a special appeal to hon. Members below the Gangway on this—the Opposition—side of the House. I have had a long acquaintance—I may say friendship—with the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Colonel King-Harman),and I am sorry that he has been placed in the position of having his conduct called in question. I looked upon his appointment from the first moment I heard of
202
it as the appointment of an honourable man. I am utterly unable to sympathize with the proposal for the reduction of the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour). For many years I have held the opinion that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has far more duties placed upon his shoulders than any mortal man can discharge as long as Ireland is governed through Dublin Castle in the manner in which it has been governed since I came into Parliament. The Chief Secretary for Ireland is practically the head of all the Irish Departments in this House, and up to a short time ago he was practically without assistance. He has had to look after all the Departments which in England and Scotland are divided among half a dozen officers; and I have always thought that the step which has lately been taken of appointing an Under Secretary ought to to have been taken long ago. The proposal to-night is to reduce the salary of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, because he has an unpaid assistant. I am not going to say that in my humble opinion the appointment of the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, or of the assistant Chief Secretary, was the very best appointments that Her Majesty's Administration could have made; but, I think, if we are dissatisfied we ought rather to attack the men than the money. If the Chief Secretary is the wrong man, we ought to have a Resolution directed, not against the salary, but against the right hon. Gentleman himself. The salary is not too large. My belief is that the total amount ought to be increased for the purpose of paying an assistant. Holding those views, although I do think that now and then the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary does answer Questions and join in debate in a manner which somewhat irritates Gentlemen on this side of the House, both above and below the Gangway, I cannot vote tonight for the diminution of the salary which I think he is trying to earn to the best of his ability by the tenure of an Office which I certainly do not envy him for a moment.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am sorry to continue the discussion at this hour of the night, but I wish to make only one or two obser-

203
vations. In the first place, I wish to point out to my hon. Friend who has just spoken that our contention is not that the salary of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant is too large for the work he has to do, but that—and I do not wish to be guilty of any discourtesy in saying this—he has not performed the duties of his Office, having in this differed from all his Predecessors. I must say that I think the Ministers of all Departments in this country, and especially those having seats in the House of Commons, are entirely too hard worked. That is one of the matters that will have to be reformed by-and-bye in the administration of this country. At the same time, I think that Ministers generally set a good example to the rest of the country by the manner in which they stick to their work by night and by day, and sacrifice their convenience, and frequently their health, in the performance of their official duties. Our complaint against the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is, that he does not follow their good example. I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury attends to his duties with great assiduity, and that he is not as young a man as the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I say it in no invidious sense. But the Chief Secretary for Ireland is the only single Member on that Bench in a Ministerial position who is not here at Question time to answer Questions, and who does not take the interest in his Office, and devote that labour to it which would accord with the best traditions of this country. That is what my objection to this Vote is based upon. I dare say that the question of salary will by-and-bye come to be one of interest to Gentlemen on these Benches. We shall then be quite ready to pay more money, because, at least, five persons will carry out the duties now assigned to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. As to the question of the proclaimed meetings in Ulster, whilst I acknowledge to the full the courtesy and readiness with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland undertook to look into that question, I must express my disappointment that he is only going to look into it now.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I said I was looking into it.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Well, I am very glad to hear it. I would just point out that more than one of these meetings has been prohibited. That is a step which ought not to be taken, except on the advice of the highest Executive Officer, and it throws a great light on the way affairs are managed in Ireland when we hear that such a step could be taken without the knowledge and consent of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. However, the right hon. Gentleman has promised to look into the matter. As to the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman), the Committee must see the inconvenient position in which we are placed. I regret that it has been felt necessary to make anything in the nature of a personal attack upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. I am sure that this is not done with any willingness. But when a man is appointed to any Office he must be prepared to have his life and actions subjected to the strictest scrutiny. I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to say that he thought an opportunity ought to be given for a discussion respecting the creation of the Office of Under Secretary for Ireland. I should like to know what opportunity will be given. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman can give us some assurance on that point he would put an end to this debate for the evening. I think the right hon. Gentleman will himself recognize that we are placed in an entirely unconstitutional position when we have a man appointed to high Office, and, because no salary is attached to that Office, are deprived of all opportunity of criticizing the appointment.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The intention has always been to bring in a Bill which will give the hon. Member the opportunity he asks for. [Cries of"When?"] This Session.
MR. W. REDMOND: I must say it is a matter for regret that this discussion was not allowed, under the circumstances, to be taken earlier in the evening, because it is a subject upon which, I believe, every member of the Party to which I have the honour to

205
belong might legitimately contribute a speech. If there had been no other reason for taking part in a discussion on the Chief Secretary's salary, I consider that ample reason was given by the speech which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) made in reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I look upon the conduct generally of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland as being absolutely insulting to the Irish Members. It seems to me to be nothing less than an insult, when a Representative of Ireland, according to his rights, puts a Question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland in this House for the right hon. Gentleman not to condescend to reply, but to pitch the Question down the Treasury Bench to the Under Secretary. That is a course of conduct which has never been adopted in this House before, and it is a course of conduct which will not make matters more easy in Ireland for the right hon. Gentleman or his Government, because it cannot be taken otherwise than as insulting to the Irish Representatives. The right hon. Gentleman sneers at the Questions we put on the Paper. He seems not to be aware that in so sneering he is bringing forward one of the best arguments for Home Rule. The right hon. Gentleman a short time ago read out some of the Questions which appeared on the Paper to-day, and sneered in a lofty manner at their insignificance. What we contend is that you, by your system of Government, compel us to bring such matters before this House. As long as we have no Court of Appeal, but this House, it is an absolute and wanton insult for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to sneer at our questions, and to say that they are insignificant. He knows that they are of the highest and first importance to the people of our constituencies who delegate us to ask them. I do not wish to pursue this matter further, except to say that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and his Government wished to get any assistance in connection with Irish matters, they might at least, if they were wise, without going into the character of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) at all, have appointed a Gentleman who, at least, would receive the sup-
206
port and confidence of the Irish people. I challenge the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he wishes to test the feeling of the Irish people, to call a meeting in any part of Ireland, and ask whether it will give him its confidence. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is an outcast from the National Party, and is not a very popular member of the Party to which he now belongs, so that he is looked upon with a certain amount of distrust by all parties in the country. The appointment is an unfortunate one for the Government. This debate, short as it has been, will do some good, for it will open the eyes of the public to what we complain of in the Government of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. A. J. Balfour), whose position has been described as of such great importance, admits that he has never been a single week in our country. If anybody asked me for a definition of tyranny, I should say—"Select a man who has never been in a country for a single week, and allow him to govern it as he pleases, against the direct wishes of the people." That is what has been done here, and that is why we say that the Government of Ireland is a tyranny of the blackest kind.
MR. ILLINGWORTH: I wish to ask a Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I understood him to say that the suppression of public meetings, owing to the organization of rival meetings, will have his immediate attention. I wish to ask whether it is the case that the two meetings already suppressed were suppressed without his knowledge, and without the sanction of his Government, and that the Government have reversed the policy of their Predecessors, and are defending the right of free speech and public meeting.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The policy to be pursued at the meetings rests with the authorities on the spot, but the general policy rests with the Government.
DR. TANNER: We are called upon to pass a certain Vote, and, for my part, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland should not be paid like any other servant. But what we are called upon to do is to give the right

207
hon. Gentleman a character. That, Sir, I decline to do. Distinctly I decline to do it. The right hon. Gentleman has deliberately insulted Members on these Benches to-night. I simply say this. I got up to say it. I should dismiss the servant with his salary, giving him the worst character I possibly could.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 187: Majority 102.—(Div. List, No. 143.)
Original Question again proposed.
MR. DILLON: I wish to put a question or two, and call the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary action of some officials of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland. The official to whose conduct I desire particularly to call the attention of the Committee is the Official Assignee; and a proceeding has been, and is, carried on in the Court almost, I believe, unparalleled. A reverend gentleman has been arrested, and has been imprisoned for two months for refusing to answer questions in a suit pending in the Court of Bankruptcy. At the time he was arrested, the petitioning creditor in Court desired to drop the proceedings and have done with them, and the bankrupt himself had disappeared from the country; so that both parties to the suit are desirous of an end being put to it, in which case, of course, the prisoner would be released from an imprisonment most injurious to the country, and attended with great inconvenience to the parish whore he pursued his ministration and to himself. The parties concerned are willing and anxious to have done with the matter; but the Assignee persists in carrying it on. I confess my legal knowledge of the point is limited; but I suppose the Official Assignee exercises a discretion he possesses; but I do say it seems a most extraordinary provision. It seems flying in the face of all common sense that there should be this deadlock and expense and general inconvenience, and that it should be maintained in spite of the wishes of the parties directly concerned. I propose to move a reduction by a sum—I do not know exactly what the salary of the Official Assignee is—but I will move a reduction by the sum of £600, to enable us to mark our opinion with regard to these transactions.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I rise to Order, Mr. Courtney. I believe the Official Assignee is not paid out of the Votes at all, but by fees from the Court.
MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman expresses a belief. Perhaps we can be informed if this is so or not?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He is not paid from the Votes; he is paid by fees from the Court.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: IS the official wholly paid in this way, or only partly?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Wholly. I believe his salary has nothing to do with the Vote.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: In that case, I would ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the rules relating to the regulation of the Court and the Official Assignee have yet been published? He will remember my putting a number of Questions on the point. Have the new rules been published yet?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The rules to which I referred, and as to which I did not promise, for I had no power to do so, have not yet been promulgated. The officials, at the invitation of the Lord Chancellor, have already drawn up certain rules.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: When is it probable they will be published? It is now several months since the question was raised.
MR. HOLMES: Not several months, I think. It was during the course of tie present Session. I shall be glad to obtain the information.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I think the doctrine of the Chief Secretary for Ireland has taken us by surprise. We are entitled to the opinion of the Law Officer as to whether the Official Assignee is paid as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I am of opinion that the salary is settled by Act of Parliament; and, if I recollect aright, only a portion comes out of the Court dues. I think we are entitled to the opinion of the Attorney General for Ireland as to whether the Official Assignee is a paid official of the Crown in Ireland.
MR. HOLMES: The way in which the Official Assignee is paid is by a percentage of the money collected by the

209
Court, not by Court fees. I think the hon. Member will find there is no money on the Votes for the purpose.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: We quite recently had a discussion under the Estimates where an Official Assignee had his salary supplemented by a Vote of the House in addition to his fees.
MR. DILLON: I am not quite clear whether we can raise the discussion under some item of the Estimates. The statement of the Attorney General for Ireland makes it extremely desirable there should be that discussion, for that statement throws a flood of light on the motives actuating the Official Assignee in insisting on prolonging proceedings neither Party has any desire to prolong. Of course, if his fees depend on the proceedings going on, it is perfectly possible the official may be acting from grossly unworthy motives, and to this I am anxious to invite the attention of the Committee, for it is nothing short of a public scandal.
MR. HOLMES: I apprehend that the great object in this system of payment is that the Court may collect as much money as possible. The reason is to encourage the Assignee to realize as much assets as possible.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: Of course, Sir, we understand that, and of the ordinary administration of the Bankruptcy Court we do not complain. But this is a case in which proceedings having been commenced in the Bankruptcy Court, the petitioner himself wishes to retire from the case, and, refusing that permission, the Official Assignee persists in keeping the case in Court, in spite of the debtor and creditor concerned. If these proceedings are going to be sanctioned, I hope it will not be without the conduct of this official being made the subject of an expression of opinion here. It is a state of things calculated to excite the gravest discontent at the system of administering this branch of justice. I deny that in ordinary cases such a proceeding would have been resorted to, and it is only applied in this instance because something of a political character has been imported into the case. The official, influenced by his views in relation to the Plan of Campaign, takes a course he would not take in an ordinary case. So we have this anomalous state of things, that the case is at an end, so far as the parties are concerned, for the
210
man who commenced the suit refuses to go on with it, and one of the witnesses is in gaol, detained there for not answering questions in reference to a bankruptcy not really before the Court at all. We do not see even how it is in the power of the Judge to release him. It would seem that the prisoner is to remain there for ever; for I believe it was a decision of one of the Lords Justices that such an imprisonment could not come to an end until the prisoner answers the questions. We complain that all this state of things has been precipitated by the misconduct of the Official Assignee, and we want some assurance that the question shall be closely looked into and a remedy applied.
MR. CHANCE: One of these Official Assignees—a gentleman recently appointed—is a Tory of a very strong type——
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The discussion is becoming irregular. It appears that the hon. Gentleman is about to impugn the conduct of an official whose salary is not provided for in the Estimates; and, therefore, it would be irregular to discuss it.
MR. CHANCE: There is a sum of £50 having reference to the accounts of Official Assignees under sub-head B of Vote 23. I do not know whether that would make the discussion regular?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it would.
MR. P. MCDONALD: I can point out a means by which we can legitimately discuss this question. I quite admit with the Attorney General for Ireland that the Official Assignee is paid by percentage; but there is another duty arising out of his administration, and that is the proper checking of the accounts of the Official Assignee. The checking of these accounts is expected to be made by officials of the Court of Bankruptcy who are paid out of the Estimates, therefore, on account of this, I claim the right to discuss the manner in which this checking has been done. In 1859 we had an Official Assignee, Mr. Hall, who left that position owing to the Court of Bankruptcy £5,804. That seemed a grave deficiency on his part at the time and it would have been expected——
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to point out a way in which the conduct

211
of the Official Assignee in respect to an imprisonment for contempt of Court could be called in question. I do not see the connection of the matter he appears to be entering upon with that matter.
MR. P. MCDONALD: I may, perhaps, go more briefly to the point. This deficiency arose from the fact——
THE CHAIRMAN: I wish the hon. Member to explain exactly how he connects his observations with any Vote before the Committee?
MR. P. MCDONALD: The Vote includes a portion of the salaries of officials of the Court of Bankruptcy, whose duty it is to check the accounts of the Official Assignee, to see that the Official Assignees have duly reported the payments made, and the manner in which they have appropriated them. I maintain it is from the want of this checking, a duty for which the public pay, that reports were not made to the Court of Bankruptcy, and, in consequence of this neglect, deficiencies have arisen. I have mentioned that so late as 1859 one of the Official Assignees——
MR. HOLMES: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member; but I cannot understand what officials he is referring to. So far as I am aware there is no payment for the auditing of these accounts coming within these Estimates.
MR. DILLON: The point we wish to bring under consideration is one that impugns the action of the Court, what we consider a very serious maladministration of the law in the Irish Bankruptcy Court. Surely it will not be contended when the entire machinery of that Court is in the Estimates we are debarred from raising this? I am not lawyer enough to say what official is responsible for this maladministration; but I do not suppose it is intended we should be shut out from debating a serious failure of justice when the whole of the expenses of the Court appears on the face of these Estimates?
THE CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure to which maladministration the hon. Member refers. Is it to the case of imprisonment for contempt?
MR. DILLON: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Then when did this other maladministration happen?
MR. DILLON: It is that of which I complained at first, and out of it arose the imprisonment for contempt, that in
212
the Court of Bankruptcy, proceedings having been instituted by a creditor for recovery of debt, the petitioner, subsequently, through his solicitor, desired to withdraw from the proceedings; but the Court and, as I believe, by the influence of improper motives, would not allow proceedings to stop, and they go on ad infinitum so far as we know.
THE CHAIRMAN: This maladministration, assuming it to be such, is totally distinct from that raised by the hon. Member for North Sligo (Mr. P. McDonald).
MR. DILLON: Quite.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is the matter involving the imprisonment for contempt of Court, and it cannot be discussed under the Vote as it appears to be due to the action of the Official Assignee, who is not provided for by the Vote, and there are no grounds for calling attention to it.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: We are not pointing to this conduct of the Official Assignee. I will show in a moment how important it is to draw attention to this matter. We are pointing to a case tested in the Court of Bankruptcy, and the petitioning creditor in this case wishes to withdraw—he has abandoned his position. But the case goes on. He has no money to meet the expenses incurred in Court by the proceedings going on, and the House will have to vote the money, as I suppose we are voting money for similar cases. We have to vote money for maintaining litigation that both parties wish to drop.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is quite impossible to discuss the matter on this Vote.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: On the point of Order, Sir, as regards the Official Assignee. Having regard to the fact that the Official Assignee is not paid directly by this House, whether he is not responsible to the Judge, whose salary is directly concerned in the Vote, will it not be possible to discuss the conduct of the Assignee?
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Judge himself is powerless in the matter.
MR. DILLON: No, Sir. On the previous occasion you ruled that we could not discuss the conduct of the Judge when I was under the impression we could do so, not appreciating the dis-

213
tinction between the Vote of the Committee and the charge on the Consolidated Fund. I submitted at once to the ruling; but the charges for the Courts are voted in the Estimates, and I believe that we might discuss the conduct of the official of the Court of Bankruptcy.
MR. P. MCDONALD: If I might be allowed to call attention to the case of Mr. James, I think it would directly and immediately show that there has been a want of the performance of duty on the part of an officer of the Court in not checking the accounts of Mr. James, and that the Official Assignee became a defaulter under circumstances we might discuss.
THE CHAIRMAN: The case introduced by the hon. Member for North Sligo is totally alien from the other point under the notice of the Committee, and has no reference to it. Imperfectly informed, as I am, I am not able to say whether it could or could not be discussed. The substantial point raised was in reference to the committal for contempt, the action of the Official Assignee, and that apparently does not come within the cognizance of the Committee, as the salary of that official does not come in the Vote.
MR. CHANCE: In reference to the committal for contempt, there is an item for the expenses of the Court messengers who went down to arrest the rev. gentleman, in the sum we are voting, together with the expenses of conducting Father Keller to gaol. Will it not be open to the Committee to discuss the circumstances under which such expenses were incurred?
THE CHAIRMAN: No; I think that connection is much too remote.
MR. DILLON: I submit to your ruling, Sir, in reference to the committal and detention of Father Keller; but I do trust the Government will give us some concession in the matter I will now bring forward. I recently visited my friend in prison, where he has been for two months. There is not a man in Ireland, I do not care what his politics may be, who has not the greatest respect for this gentleman, and does not believe that he went to prison from high and honourable motives. I found that he was being treated in a way that is perfectly disgraceful and a public scandal. I found that he is locked up in a small room for 22
214
hours out of the 24, and obtains two hours exercise in the prison court. I may speak upon this, for the Vote includes £20,000 for Irish Prisons. The prisoner shares with another a very small room, and when taking exercise by marching round a yard, is not allowed to speak under pain of being reported for punishment. I could hardly believe that a man in his position could be so treated as if he were a criminal. He is not in prison for any crime, he is not a prisoner in the ordinary sense; he is simply detained on technical grounds, not having answered questions put to him. It is a monstrous scandal that this gentleman should be treated like a felon; and if the ordinary rules do not meet the case, then a special rule should be applied, and he should be allowed reasonable exercise, and to receive visits in the evening; in fact, he should be treated without that gross brutality to which he has been subjected. The Government will facilitate the passing of the Vote if they will get up and say frankly that this gentleman shall be treated with humanity and every consideration consistent with his detention. I may say that the Rev. Father Keller never wrote to me, or made any complaint of his treatment; and I was perfectly horrified to find the treatment to which he had been subjected, and I asked him why he did not write to me, that I might bring the subject to the attention of the House. I feel considerable confidence that if I had an opportunity of bringing the matter under the attention of the Government, they would no longer tolerate such a condition of affairs.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I can give no pledge to the hon. Gentleman, beyond the one I have already given. When this question was brought before the House on a former occasion, I promised that I would inquire into the whole question of prison accommodation and rules. That pledge I now repeat, but I cannot go beyond it.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: If the right hon. Gentleman has given that pledge, has he taken any steps whatever to carry it out? It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to take his time in making these inquiries; but let him remember that all this time there is confined in prison one who stands infinitely higher in the hearts and estimation of the Irish people than the right hon. Gentleman is ever likely to stand,

215
and that that man is having all kinds of indignities heaped upon him. I say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is calculated to inflame the minds of Irishmen against your system. After his attention has been called to the treatment extended to one who stands foremost amongst the Irish Priesthood, who has been specially honoured by his Bishop since his imprisonment commenced, and who will, undoubtedly, one day be himself a Bishop of the Diocese of Cloyne, the Chief Secretary, although he promises to inquire into the matter, allows several weeks to pass without commencing his investigation; he does not take the trouble to inform himself how the rev. gentleman is being treated. Perhaps he will relegate the duty to his right hon. and gallant Colleague, to whom he has already entrusted the task of answering Questions, and then we shall see the Champion Orangeman of Ireland going down to the gaol to inquire into the treatment of Canon Keller. Now, Sir, it is a very singular fact that while the Prisons Act of 1877 compels the Prisons Board to make provision for the treatment of prisoners detained as first-class misdemeanants, no rules whatever have yet been drafted by the Prisons Board in Ireland under the provisions of that Act. Of course, it does not matter how they treat their ordinary prisoners. If it is only an ordinary prisoner—say, for instance, an Irish Member of Parliament—the Board can pursue that line of conduct with impunity, and this House will approve and applaud the conduct of the Governors in heaping indignities upon him. But, Sir, I would point out that Canon Keller is not imprisoned for contempt of Court; he is merely imprisoned under a statutory provision in the Irish Bankruptcy Act enabling the Judge to detain any witness who refuses to answer a question put to him. It is a mere statutory power of detention; it is not imprisonment for contempt; yet a gentleman detained under such a provision is, for 22 out of every 24 hours, locked in a miserable little cell, and shut out from air and exercise, while during the two hours he is allowed exercise he has to march round a ring, like a horse in the hands of a trainer, a warder being put in the centre of the circle to keep order among the persons allowed this exercise. Do you think that such a system of
216
imprisonment, that such a method of treating rev. gentlemen in that position, of treating ministers in whom the people have so much confidence, is calculated to endear your system of administration to the Irish people, or to make men loyal? No doubt when the rev. gentleman comes out of gaol he will speak very strongly on your system of administration. What on earth is the reason for treating in this manner two clergymen who have committed no offence, who cannot by any possibility defeat the ends of justice, and who cannot defeat the process of law in any way? Why should these two clergymen, while taking exercise in the same yard, be prevented speaking to one another? I cannot see how the Prisons Board can possibly justify their action. In no country in the world, except Ireland, would such a system be tolerated. You would not dare treat a clergyman imprisoned for similar causes in England in this way. No; it is only the Irish people that you dare insult in that way. Now, Sir, quite recently we had occasion to bring the case of Canon Keller before the Courts in Ireland by an application for Habeas Corpus to go to the Superior Courts. To do that it was necessary for us to communicate with him. We found that the Prisons Board—who were supposed to have special rules for the treatment of prisoners such as these—would not allow Father Keller facilities for seeing his counsel. Such an extraordinary state of things could not occur in any other civilized country. If you have a man in gaol awaiting his trial for a crime, however serious it may be, you allow his solicitor, or counsel, to have free access to him for consultation with reference to his case. But here you have a clergyman detained, not for any crime—not even for contempt of Court—and what do the Prisons Board say to his application for permission to see his counsel? They say, if you were awaiting your trial for a crime, however heinous, you should have every freedom to see your solicitor or counsel, but because you are not a criminal, because you have committed no offence, we cannot deal with your case, and we must deny you the right to see your counsel in private. If he comes to see you there must be a warder present, to listen to your conversation, and to check it, if, to his untutored mind, it appeared to be his duty to interfere. I say that such a

217
system is calculated to bring discredit and disgrace upon your system, and to perpetuate the hate which already exists in the minds of the people against that system. But, in addition to his treatment in prison, I feel bound to call attention to the manner in which the rev. gentleman was arrested and dragged to gaol, which affords another example of your vicious system of government. The officers of the Bankruptcy Court, when they ordered his arrest, knew very well that Canon Keller had no knowledge whatever of the affairs of the bankrupt in reference to which he was called.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question is the treatment of Father Keller in prison. The hon. Member is going beyond that.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I did not intend to do anything of the kind, Sir. I was referring to the circumstances of the Rev. Canon's arrest, because I happened to be a witness of it, and I took it to be a portion of his gaol treatment. But I need not pursue the subject further. I can only say that I am surprised at the manner in which the Government have treated our remarks on this subject. I do not know anything calculated to reflect more discredit upon them than that at a time when they are endeavouring to make special provision for the repression of crime in Ireland, they should offer an open and deliberate insult to the people of that country by detaining this rev. gentleman as a prisoner, and by preventing him free access to his counsel, simply because he is not in gaol on a criminal charge or for contempt of Court. I hope that the Chief Secretary for Ireland has not said his last word on this subject; it would, indeed be a serious thing if he allowed it to go forth to the country that he was unable to interfere in this matter. The Prisons Board is in no way responsible to the people of Ireland; they may be said to be the creatures of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Fully a month has elapsed since he promised to inquire into the statement as to the treatment in prison of these rev. gentlemen; he has not yet done so; are we to understand that he is unable to devote his very great mind to inquiring into this very small matter of detail? Are Father Keller and Father Ryan, under these circumstances, to be left in gaol until their healths are broken, and to be sent back to their
218
people in a state which will invoke curses upon your system of prison treatment?
DR. KENNY: I venture to join in the appeal of my hon. and learned Friend. Let them consider the principle underlying this imprisonment. I maintain it is not intended to be punitive Here are Father Keller and Father Ryan—men accustomed to load healthy lives—locked in a cell 22 out of 24 hours. Is not that punitive? Is it not calculated to break down their healths? My experience in life tells me such treatment constitutes a very great punishment, and one which invariably produces serious constitutional effects, wherever it is prolonged to any extent. The Prisons Board is, I am informed, composed of three men, the Chairman being the Hon. Mr. Burke, whose removal is recommended by the Prisons Commissioners, because they found him to be so entirely out of sympathy with the times. This Board met in Dublin, and it was recommended that the rules governing Father Keller's imprisonment should be considerably relaxed, and that he should be allowed two or three additional hours' exorcise daily; but the recommendations were never put into effect. The House would like to know why that is the case. No doubt the very rigorous imprisonment will be most detrimental to a man like Father Keller. He desired to see me, and I went to the prison, but I was turned away. The Prison Governor refused to allow me to see him. I do not complain of the action of the Governor, he was most courteous; but I do quarrel with the prison rules. I do think no rule should compel Father Keller to see the prison doctor when he prefers his own. This is an example of how the prison rules are interpreted. The Prisons Board, like other Irish Boards, is an autocratic body; it is not responsible to the people. I appeal to the Chief Secretary for Ireland to use his influence with the Prisons Board. If the Government had a sparkle of intelligence they would not hesitate to relax these rules and make them as lenient as possible, and not make a man, who is undoubtedly a political power in the country, more of a martyr than he has already become through their action. The Government seem to have no idea of taking into consideration what are the motives actuating a man in Father Keller's position, they ignore the feel-

219
ings of the people among whom he lives and by whom he is beloved. It is not to be denied that in every constitutionally governed country it is the duty of the governors to try and find out what are the reasonable aspirations of those over whom they are placed and to secure that, as far as possible, their legislation shall come within the spirit of those limits. But the very opposite line of conduct marks the acts of the British Government in Ireland. I would appeal, Sir, to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to descend from the pedestal on which he has placed himself, and to consider these matters which affect poor mortals. Let him give his great mind to see how things are managed in Ireland, and if he will only devote some thoughtful consideration to it, he will acquire a more intimate knowledge of the men over whom he is placed.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I have risen for the purpose of pointing out to the Government the extremely unfair position in which they put English Members by taking part Votes on account. If we discuss in fulness any Vote to which we have objection, we put ourselves under the suspicion of desiring to obstruct the Business of the Government; but if we allow large sums of money to be voted without question we put ourselves in the position of not doing justice to our constituents. There are several Votes and several matters involved in the Vote on Account which I have already raised by Question in this House, and in regard to some I have given Notice of my intention to raise a discussion of them when the Estimates are considered. I do not intend to do it at this stage; but if, on another occasion, it is found necessary to take a Vote on Account instead of submitting the Estimates in the ordinary way, I give notice that I must, at any risk, raise the points I wish to have discussed.
MR. ILLINGWORTH: I really think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland cannot have considered the question. If it be true that a month ago an appeal was made to him relative to the treatment of this Gentleman—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Although a statement to that effect has been twice made, I was unwilling to interrupt hon. Members. But it is a fact I never made any such promise with regard to Father
220
Keller, nor did I say anything on this matter a month ago. A few days ago, while the Committee was on the first clause of the Crimes Bill, I gave a general pledge to look into the question of prison administration.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: Father Keller's case was mentioned more than a month ago.
MR. ILLINGWORTH: But it is the fact that two rev. gentlemen are at this moment in prison in Ireland. At this time too, there is a clergyman in an English prison for contempt of Court. I know for a fact that the treatment in the two cases is as different as possible. If this is to continue how can the Government hope to reconcile Ireland to British rule? Can there be any rhyme or reason for the supercilious answer of the right hon. Gentleman? Surely he might give us some comfort by assuring us that there will be expedition used. In my opinion, there ought not to be an hour lost in which the feelings and indignation of the Irish people can be justifiably aroused, yet the right hon. Gentleman will leave the Committee in doubt as to whether he has already initiated an inquiry, or whether he proposes doing so before Whitsuntide. He does not give us the slightest indication that in his mind he deems this question to be one of urgency. There are, I believe, few questions which more appropriately might engage the immediate attention of Parliament than the treatment of gentlemen confined under these conditions in Irish prisons.
MR. CHANCE: Two Irish priests are in prison charged with no offence whatsoever; they are subjected to considerable indignity; for 22 out of 24 hours they are locked in a miserable damp room, what little exercise they are allowed they have to take as felons, and if for the whole two hours they do not choose to keep on their feet they are led back to their rooms and again locked up. The letters which they receive and write are opened; if the contents are considered objectionable they are suppressed. I can perfectly well understand why these two priests are detained in prison. It is because they have advocated a certain Plan of Campaign. The Government tried to tackle that plan in the open with the powerful weapons of jury packing, a paid public Press, and a full bar of Crown lawyers. They

221
failed miserably; and, therefore, they took the most despicable course of catching Catholic clergymen, asking them questions they would certainly refuse to answer, and treating them as felons for that refusal. I would remind the Committee that these priests, in refusing to betray their Plan of Campaign, acted precisely in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) when he refused to betray his Plan of Campaign.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order! order! The hon. Member is suffering himself to wander very far from the subject.
MR. CHANCE: I understood that the subject was the treatment in prison of Father Keller, and I wanted to point out the causes which, in my opinion, led to that treatment. I also wanted to point out that there were no rules specially framed for the treatment of these prisoners, and to suggest it was in the power of the Castle Authorities to frame such rules. If that line of argument is out of Order, I will not proceed with it.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have instructed the hon. Member that he is perfectly at liberty to discuss the treatment of these gentlemen in prison.
MR. CHANCE: It is perfectly impossible to carry on the discussion in that way. This is the third or fourth time to-night that Irish Members have found it impossible to raise distinct and important issues. I trust that the Government will have the manliness to meet us in open fair square fight, instead of acting in this miserable, mean, and degraded manner.
MR. W. ABRAHAM: Will the Government say whether the treatment of a clergyman confined in England or Scotland for contempt of Court, is the same as that to which Father Keller is subjected. There is now a clergyman imprisoned for contempt of Court. Does his treatment differ in any way from the treatment accorded to Father Keller?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have no reason to believe that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Abrahams) has stated what is incorrect. I have no knowledge of the facts of the case, but I believe the treatment is of precisely the same character.
MR. ILLINGWORTH: My information is from the public prints, and there it was stated that this clergyman is allowed to see his friends, and that every luxury is provided for, and every consideration shown to him.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I wish to say a word or two on what strikes me as a legal matter arising out of this Vote, on which I should like to hear the opinion of the Attorney General for Ireland. I put a Question on the matter a few days ago, and it does appear to me to be a very important subject. As I understand it, there are two classes of prisoners who are treated in a somewhat exceptional manner—untried prisoners, and what are called first-class misdemeanants. It is perfectly plain that persons who are committed for refusing to answer questions do not come within either category—they are not untried prisoners, because they are charged with no offence, and cannot possibly be tried; they are not committed for contempt, because that is not the form of the warrant under which they are held in custody, and the statistics under which they are committed do not describe their offence as contempt of Court. That being so, I wish to be informed why the Prisons Board have taken it upon themselves to treat these gentlemen as if they had been committed for contempt of Court? For my part, I deny that the Board have any right whatever to do so. It seems to me that these persons constitute a third and perfectly distinct category of the prisoners whose case is not met by the prison rules as they are at present drawn up. That being so, and. these being privileged prisoners, as I may call them, and the Prisons Board having been put, in a certain sense, to choose whether they would treat these gentlemen as untried prisoners, or prisoners committed for contempt, I want to know why they have selected the severer régime? I respectfully submit that it was perfectly open to the Board to have treated these gentlemen as untried prisoners, a category which is quite as applicable to them as the other. The section under which they are imprisoned does not describe their offence—if I may call it an offence—at all as contempt of Court. It simply authorizes the Judge before whom they may be examined to commit them to prison for refusing to

223
answer questions, and that is altogether different from the ordinary cases, either of persons committed for contempt by the High Court, and by the Common Law power which the Inferior Courts have. I hold, therefore, that the Prisons Board have exceeded their powers in this matter; or, at any rate, they have exercised, and are exercising them, if they have any discretion, in a perfectly unwarrantable fashion. I say it was perfectly open to them, when they were deciding in what manner these gentlemen should be treated, to have said—"As the law stands they are not convicted prisoners, nor untried prisoners, nor persons committed for contempt, and we will put them in the category of untried prisoners." This is a very important matter. We have been for several weeks past discussing the 1st section of the Crimes Bill. [Cries of "Order!"] I think this is perfectly relevant; because the persons who are committed for refusing to answer questions at the secret inquiry will be in exactly the same position as the two gentlemen who are now in gaol. The section of the Petty Sessions Act under which prisoners will be committed for refusing to answer at the secret inquiries are equally silent as to the category in which these persons will be placed in prison. It does not describe the offence as contempt of Court, but leaves the question of treatment for the Prisons Board to decide. That being so, I ask the Attorney General for Ireland, whose attention I drew to this matter some time ago, to explain to this Committee on what ground the Prisons Board took it upon themselves to say that these prisoners are prisoners committed for contempt of Court, and to refuse to rank them as untried prisoners.
MR. HOLMES: I do not wish to prolong this debate; but with reference to the question which has been asked me, my answer, I hope, will be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman. This question has not now arisen for the first time. Ever since the year 1859 this has been a matter which, from time to time, has had to be dealt with by the Prisons Board and the Irish Authorities. Prom that time down to the present, persons who have refused to answer questions in the Higher Courts have been treated as if they were committed for contempt of Court. And for a very good reason,
224
because they are committed for contempt of Court. The Superior Courts require no Statute. When a witness will not answer he is committed; but when a Statute called into existence the Bankruptcy Court in Ireland, power was given to imprison persons for not answering questions, just as the Superior Courts have power to commit for contempt of Court——
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: But the power to commit in the Bankruptcy Court is a distinct power.
MR. HOLMES: Yes; but the two things do not differ in the slightest degree, and if a witness declines to answer questions the offence is really of the same character as contempt of Court. It is essentially a similar offence. You cannot draw any distinction; and, therefore, as I say, the rule which has been followed since 1859 is justifiable.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that he is very much at sea in this matter. I do not complain of that, for we all know that the Bankruptcy Law is a thing which very few lawyers go to the trouble of studying. But if he will examine the matter, he will see that there is the greatest distinction between an ordinary case of a witness refusing to answer a question and a witness committed for contempt. The two things are treated in different ways. There are two different Schedules attached to the Bankruptcy Act setting out two different forms. One of them, Schedule W of the Act of 1867, sets forth the refusal of the witness to answer. The other, Schedule Y, is the form of warrant for the committal of a person for contempt. If the two things are one and the same, the draftsman would not have thought it necessary to put two separate Schedules to the Bill giving two different forms of warrant. The fact is, that under the old Bankruptcy Law there was this power to imprison a witness who refused to answer, or to sign his depositions, and the whole of the depositions had to be set out in the warrant for his committal. What took place was this—that a section was introduced in the Act by which it was made unnecessary to set out the depositions in the warrant; and it became only necessary for the Judge, in making the order for the committal, to refer to the number

225
of the question on the depositions. That is precisely the case in Father Keller's imprisonment. The question is set out on the face of the warrant numerically, thereby taking the offence out of the category of contempt of Court. So it is treated by the Judges. I have been arguing the question during the last few days before the Judges of Ireland, and they are not disposed to dismiss it in the very summary way which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland wishes to do now. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may allow me, also, to point out that the Prisons Act of 1877 gave power to the Prisons Board to make orders in cases of this kind, and there is no need to go back to 1859, and to say that the practice then followed has been continued up to the present time, when the additional powers given to the Prisons Board in 1877 are taken into consideration. What I complain of is, that while there are two sets of rules to meet the case of prisoners who have not been tried, or prisoners who are not sentenced for any definite offence, the Prisons Board have elected to treat Canon Keller and Father Ryan under the most severe of those sets of rules. The first-class misdemeanant was originally the imprisoned debtor, and, of course, no one can deny that there must be some question of punishment attached to imprisonments of that nature. Then there is the case of prisoners awaiting trial who are allowed certain privileges to which the first-class misdemeanant is not entitled, such as full access to his counsel and his medical adviser, and the right of free correspondence. The person committed for contempt is, on the other hand, restricted to a great extent as to his correspondence, nor is he allowed free access to his counsel or his medical adviser. Could there be anything more absurd than to contend that one whose offence is not sufficiently great to place him within the category of committal for contempt of Court is not to have the same right as a man who is charged with a heinious offence, but who has not yet been brought to trial? If these rev. gentlemen were in prison awaiting trial on a grave charge, they would have free access to their counsel and medical adviser, and free correspondence. These privileges are denied because the Prisons Board refuse to carry out an Act of Parliament,
226
and indignities are inflicted upon them which were never contemplated at the time the Bankruptcy Act was passed. I do not think we should be doing justice to our constituents if we were to rest content with the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and I think we are entitled to a further answer. I, therefore, beg to move that you report Progress.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. T. C. Harrington,)—put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION BILL.
(Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)

[BILL 130.] COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: I rise to appeal to the Government in the very strongest manner in regard to this Bill. Considering the large number of people who are interested in it, its extreme importance, and the unexpected way in which the second reading was taken, I wish to ask the Government whether they will not put it down for some date when we can have an adequate discussion upon it? I do not see that it is possible to have such adequate discussion this side of Whitsuntide, and in the absence of any assurance that they will give us facilities before Whitsuntide, I beg to move that the order be postponed until the 9th of June, which, I believe, is the Thursday immediately after the re-assembling of the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee be deferred till Thursday 9th June."—(Mr. J. E. Ellis.)
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): If it is the wish of hon. Gentlemen that the Order should be definitely postponed until the 9th of June, the Government will offer no objection.
Question put, and agreed to.

TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 225.]
(Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, The Lord Advocate.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Heading read.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON): In moving the second reading of this Bill, I wish to make only one observation. We propose in Committee to bring forward Amendments to simplify and extend the scope of this Bill merely to this extent. Instead of enabling the trustees to go to the Court for powers under this Bill, we propose that the trustees shall have some power without going; to the Court at all; and, in the second place, we propose that clauses should be inserted which will have the effect of ratifying reductions of rent which may have been given by the trustees on their own motion.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland,)—put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

PARISH ALLOTMENTS COMMITTEES BILL.— [BILL 170.]
(Mr. Cobb, Mr. Channing, Mr. Fuller, Mr. James Ellis, Mr. Herbert Gardner, Mr. Thomas Ellis.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. COBB: I feel that it would not be right at this very late hour that I should detain the House with any explanation of this Bill, which has been for some time before the House I believe that some Bill of this sort will command the approval of all parties in the House, and the only object I now have in view is to do something towards putting this allotments question at least one stage forward. In the hope that the Government will give an assurance that that is also their intention, I will confine myself to moving the second reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Mr. Cobb.)
MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I beg to move the adjourn-
228
ment of this debate, on the ground that it is wholly impossible at this hour to discuss a Bill of this importance. It has 62 clauses; it deals with every parish in England, with few exceptions; it establishes a Corporation in every parish, and enables those Corporations to borrow money and acquire land without the consent of this House, on the security of the Poor Law Fund. I only mention these few points to satisfy the House that this is a Bill which ought not to be proceeded with in this fashion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Radcliffe Cooke.)
MR. BROADHURST: I wish to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to use his influence with his followers to induce them to withdraw this Motion. This Allotments Question is one that is well understood by nearly every Member of this House. It is a subject in which great interest is taken by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. The hon. Baronet the Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck) has a very useful Bill before the House, and he has received very great assistance this Session from my hon. Friends here. I myself have done what I could to assist the passage of that Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) could say a word to ensure the second reading of this Bill, we might, perhaps, find time for more ample debate.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): No one feels more interested in this question of allotments than I do and have done, and this feeling is shared entirely on these Benches. The Government have an Allotments Bill of their own, which will deal with the question much more effectually and thoroughly than the Bill of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cobb). The hon. Member only asks us for an assurance that we should give this matter one step forward. We believe that will be best secured by the consideration of a measure which is about to be introduced in "another place," and which, we hope, will be passed through this House during the present Session. The machinery with which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobb) has clothed this measure we deem to be unsatisfactory; and, therefore, I

229
hope the hon. Member will consent to postpone this Bill until he can see our own measure, which we believe will be thoroughly satisfactory to both sides of the House.
MR. COBB: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) will, I am sure, give me credit for only trying to do what is in my power to push this question forward. It will, perhaps, be also within his memory that a month or five weeks ago I asked him whether, seeing that an Allotments Bill was promised in the Queen's Speech, he would not bring it forward at once, and consent to that, as well as the large number of other Bills before the House on the subject, being referred to a Select Committee, so that the work of allotments might be going on. I am quite willing to accept that now, and not to take a Division. Otherwise I feel that I must resist the Motion for the Adjournment of the debate.
MR. FINCH-HATTON: I want to say one word on this question of the adjournment of the debate, being equally interested with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Cobb) in the question. On the distinct understanding from Her Majesty's Government that if we agree to the adjournment of the debate to-night they will not only introduce their Bill into the other House, but proceed with it here this Session, I shall support the Motion for the Adjournment.
MR. NEWNES: I beg to point out that the hon. Member who has brought forward this Bill has not received the assurance he asked, that the Bill of the Government and the other Bills shall be referred to a Select Committee. This is a question of the deepest possible importance to the rural districts of England, and we should be very much better employed in dealing with it than in coercing the Irish people. At all events, I hope that unless the hon. Member receives a distinct and emphatic assurance that this question will receive the attention of the House he will refuse to accept any compromise.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): It is quite impossible for the Government to give any such assurance. They cannot consent to refer this Bill to a Committee,
230
and the reason is obvious. The Government have prepared and are ready to introduce to Parliament a Bill of their own, which deals with this subject in a more satisfactory manner than this present Bill does. Holding that opinion, it is out of the question for the Government to assent to the second reading with the idea of referring the Bill to a Select Committee. I can assure my hon. Friend behind me that the Government are prepared to deal with the subject at once. No time will be lost in introducing it into the House of Lords, and we hope it may pass into law this Session. It would not be in Order for mo to discuss the provisions of the Bill now. The hon. Member says it has often been discussed before, and that there is a practical agreement upon it; but I think what there has been a practical agreement upon is that there shall be a Bill dealing with the question of allotments. The principle of this Bill has not been under discussion, that principle being that the parish shall set up an authority, with full power to deal with the matter. All I have to say on this point is in reference to the observation that in principle this Bill has been assented to. What has been assented to is that there should be an Allotments Bill; the Government are pledged to that, and the Bill will be introduced.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I have hope that opinion has made some progress on the other side, since in the last Parliament we had an Allotments Bill opposed very much on the same grounds by the Party opposing this Bill now. Again, we have the assurance that the Government have a better Bill ready. But we have not seen the Government Bill, and we do know that the principle of this Bill commends itself to many of us on this side. We recollect, also, that we are not receiving the support we hoped for from the professed friends of the Allotments Question. We ask only for a decision upon the principle, and that being denied us, we must take a Division technically upon the adjournment; but which will be accepted as a division on the principle of the Bill of my hon. Friend.
MR. CHANCE: I only wish to say that the Government, by the action of one of their own supporters, have been prevented from stating what their objections to the Bill are, and that

231
is a most inconvenient state of affairs. It may be a bad Bill, it may be a good Bill, I will not discuss it now; but I wish to point out that all we have is a promise that at some time some Bill will be introduced in "another place." Meanwhile, the Government stand uncommitted on this Bill. We want them to state their views, and give reasons for their "Yes" or "No" to the Bill. I would appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to induce his supporter to withdraw the Motion for Adjournment. We desire to have the views of the Government stated, and the country desires it. When it learns that a Motion from an hon. Gentleman sitting immediately behind the Government Bench prevented the Government from expressing an opinion, the country will draw its own inference from the occurrence.
MR. CHANNING: I am bound to protest against the course of the Government. The whole time of the House is taken up by Irish affairs, and when an opportunity occurs of doing useful work in a matter vitally important to England it should not be let slip. The argument of the President of the Local Government Board that the Bill of the hon. Member for Rugby brought in a novel principle—the principle of a popularly elected body—is precisely the reason why this Bill deserves full consideration. Before we go to a Division I should like to ask how it is that we hear from the Government about the introduction of a Bill in "another place" only when this Bill happens to be unblocked upon the Orders to-night? I hope the Government will see their way to inducing the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion, and not give their assistance to burke the free discussion of this question in the face of the whole country.
MR. CLANCY: If this Motion is not withdrawn, the understanding is that, practically, the Division is upon the principle of the Bill. The Government have shown they are trying to dodge the agricultural labourers; but we can hold them to this question until they pronounce their opinion distinctly.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 143: Noes 85: Majority 58.—(Div. List No 144.)
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

OPEN SPACES (DUBLIN) BILL.— [BILL 80.]
(Mr. William Redmond, Mr. T. D. Sullivan, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Dwyer Gray, Mr. Timothy Harrington.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. MURPHY: I beg to move the second reading of this Bill. The chief objects for which this Bill was intended are provided for by the Metropolitan Open Spaces Extension Bill, which has passed the third reading in this House, and which applies to Ireland; but this Bill contains certain provisions that the Local Government Board did not think desirable to embody in the general Bill; they apply specially to Dublin, and will materially assist Lord Ardilaun and his Committee in their efforts to create recreation grounds by enabling old laneways and passages which have become only nuisances to be closed up, I trust there will be no objection to this stage, and ample time will be afforded for the consideration of the clauses which are proposed to be embodied in the Bill before the Committee stage is entered upon.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Murphy.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): The Government had hoped that the Metropolitan Open Spaces Act sufficiently dealt with this subject; but as hon. Members seem to think there are some points not dealt with applicable specially to Dublin, and that the Bill is in accord with some project of Lord Ardilaun, the Government will not oppose the second reading, reserving, however, full liberty of action in reference to the next stage.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 9th June.

MOTIONS.

  NATIONAL DEBT AND LOCAL LOANS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Bill to amend the Law respecting the National Debt and the charge thereof on the Consolidated Fund, and to make further provision respecting Local Loans, ordered to be

  233
  brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 266.]

  FOREST SCHOOL,
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether by the Establishment of a Forest School, or otherwise, our woodlands could be rendered more remunerative.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Eighteen Members.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Forestry, in the Sessions 1885–6, be referred to the Committee.—(Sir Edmund Lechmere.)

  SAVING LIFE AT SEA.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Saving Life at Sea that they have power to inquire and report as to the fittings and appliances on board British Merchant Ships, with a view to the safety of life.—(Baron Henry de Worms.)
  House adjourned at half after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Jubilee Service in Westminster Abbey, appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Metropolis Management (Battersea and Westminster) * (101).
Second Reading—Quarries (83); Police Force Enfranchisement (77).
Committee—Irish Land Law (58).

QUARRIES BILL.—(No. 83.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SUDELEY,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he wished to explain that the object of the
2
Bill was merely to oblige quarries dangerous to the public in open and unprotected land, or within 50 yards of a highway or public resort, to be securely fenced for the prevention of accidents. He wished further to say that county Coroners had constantly reported a number of fatal accidents arising from this cause, and also that the Bill had passed through the House of Commons.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Sudeley.)
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he rose to oppose the Motion, on account of the looseness of the definitions of a quarry, as an opening in the ground from which stone had been taken. In Wales, where there were walls and no hedges, every farm had a small quarry. The definitions went on to include sand holes and gravel pits, which were not dangerous, and mentioned openings from which clay had been taken—that is to say, ponds. In Cheshire, and parts of

3
the adjoining counties, almost every field had a marl pit, if not two or three of them. These ponds required to be kept open for cattle. Even if they were railed in, that would not keep out children; neither would poles, which, being constantly stolen, so as to leave gaps, be any protection to children, who would get through or under any fence.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a.

POLICE FORCE ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.—(No. 77.)
(The Earl of Harrowby.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he believed that the measure would meet with the acceptance of their Lordships. He trusted their Lordships would give it a favourable consideration on the ground that it was one of the very comparatively small company of Bills which had as yet reached them from "another place" that Session. Including Provisional Orders only 21 Bills had yet come up from the other House to their Lordships; whereas, he understood that their Lordships had forwarded 54 to the other House. The present Bill had had the support of three Secretaries of State, and upon its own merits also, it well deserved a second reading. Soldiers, sailors., Revenue officers, and postmen, all now had the right to exercise the franchise, and it was only fair and just that that right should be extended to the Police Force. He, therefore, hoped their Lordships would give the Bill a second reading. The police, as a rule, were respected by all but the evildoers. There was no body of men in this country who were more law-loving and more worthy of the great trust of the franchise, and there was reason to believe that they felt deeply the fact of their being deprived of it. He would conclude by moving the second reading of the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Bill; but he confessed that he thought it required a
4
very great deal of consideration. The nature of the duties of the police were such as to make it a serious question whether it was consistent with those duties whether they should be admitted to the franchise. He admitted that, as a body, the police would bear a not unfavourable comparison with other classes who now possessed the franchise; but supposing that, at a contested election, there was a disturbance in which the police were called upon to act for the restoration of order, surely, it would be better that that duty should be performed by a body of men taking no part in the election, and quite independent of either Party, than by a body of men who took part in the contest, and were interested on one side or the other. He called attention to the position of soldiers in the Army as being a case analogous to that of the police.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he wished to point out that the Royal Irish Constabulary were not included in the Bill, although every word which had been said in praise of the Police of Great Britain could be said with greater force in favour of the Royal Irish Constabulary, to whom not only the Government, but every respectable man, woman, and child in Ireland, owed a deep debt of gratitude. He was sure that by their omission from the provisions of that Bill, there was no intention of casting a slur on that excellent body of men; but he trusted that they would hear from the Government that it was their intention, at the earliest opportunity, to introduce a Bill dealing separately with the Royal Irish Constabulary and putting them on an equal footing with their brethren in England and Scotland.
LORD BRABOURNEgave a warm support to the Bill, but said, that he only rose in consequence of the remark of his noble and learned Friend (the Earl of Selborne) with regard to soldiers. With great submission to the noble Earl, he would remind him that recent decisions in the Registration Courts had established the right of soldiers to vote at Parliamentary Elections, if duly qualified. What this Bill proposed to do was, not to give votes to men because they were policemen, but to enact that, if otherwise duly qualified, they should not be disfranchised on account of their being policemen.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he wished to explain that his remarks were not applied to policemen generally, but only to those who might be on duty during elections.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

INDIA—THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT —EXPROPRIATION OF ZEMINDARS AT ARNI GHAT, MUSSOORIE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in rising to present a Petition; and to ask the Secretary of State for India, If it was true that at Mussoorie there were three men in possession of a cultivatory holding of 200 bighas, at a fixed rent of Rs.5 to Rs.8 a-year, and of very considerable value. The land was taken away by Government under the Land Acquisition Act, and Mr. Laidman assessed the compensation to be given. In the result he awarded Rs.3,300 to the person entitled to receive the rent, and Rs.2,400 to the tenants, and out of this Rs.2,400 he gave all but Rs.900 to the creditor of one of the tenants, so that the three, who wore formerly in a position of comparative opulence, were turned out upon the world as beggars; and, if it is true, whether he will direct that these men be compensated; also, if he will inquire whether Mr. Laidman's Court was one duly qualified under the Land Acquisition Act for hearing the case; and whether the public notices and proclamations required by the Act had been made; also to ask the Secretary of State if he will inquire into the conduct of the Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Provinces, Sir Alfred Lyall—(1) in respect to the Arni Ghat expropriation; (2) his ordering Mr. Laidman to prosecute Captain Hearsey; (3) his promotion of Mr. Laidman after the trial; (4) the secret Circular to his judicial subordinates commenting adversely on the judgment of the Chief Justice? said, according to the Notice, he had the honour to present a Petition from Captain Hearsey, asking for redress on account of the acts of the Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Provinces. Captain Hearsey's family had been attainted in 1745 on account of the presence of some of them at the Battle of Culloden. Since then they had settled in India, and 10 of his rela-
  6
  tives had served in the Indian Army. His father was General Sir J. B. Hearsey, who played a considerable part in the Mutiny. The case which he had to lay before the House consisted of two separate complaints—first, with regard to the spoliation of the Arni Ghat Zemindars for the purpose of providing a better botanical garden for Mussoorie; and, secondly, with respect to the conduct of Sir Alfred Lyall, as it arose out of the spoliation of these Zemindars. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cross) would not be able to deny the description of the injury suffered by these Zemindars given in the Notice Paper, because these words were taken from the summing up of the Chief Justice in a trial arising out of the first wrong done to the Zemindars. This Chief Justice was then the Chief Justice at Allahabad, and he had since become the Chief Justice of Calcutta. The wrong done to the three brothers who owned Arni Ghat was that they were forcibly deprived, under the Land Acquisition Act, of land and houses valued at Rs.22,000 for a nominal sum of Rs.5,700. That this sum was entirely inadequate was clear from the fact that the three assessors of all the parties agreed in stating that this property, which was irrigated, could produce 400 maunds of wheat per annum besides other crops. At the price for wheat in the locality, at 20 years' purchase—the basis laid down in the Land Acquisition Act—this gave Rs.20,000 and Rs.2,000 for the houses on it. Another proof consisted in the fact that the old discarded botanical garden had since been sold for Rs.10,000; yet it must have been inferior to Arni Ghat, or it would not have been abandoned for Arni Ghat. There was yet a further injustice done to these unfortunate Zemindars. A certain mohunt or priest had a chief rent of Rs.5 on Arni Ghat, the payment of which should have been continued by the Government on behalf of the botanical gardens, as would have happened in the case of a Scotch for or an English chief rent; or the chief rent might have been extinguished at 25 years' purchase, which would have been Rs.125; but, instead of that, Mr. Laid-main, the Judge of the Small Causes Court which settled this case, assigned Rs.3,300, or the larger half of the purchase money—Rs,5,700—to the mohunt

  7
  or owner of the chief rent of Rs.5. He must explain an apparent discrepancy between Rs.5 and the Rs.5 to Rs.8 a-year mentioned by the Chief Justice. By the deed—of which he had in his hand a translation—
  "The high priest and ruler and chief mohunt of the Gurn Guddee, by name Saroop Dass, gave a grant by deed of the village of Ami Ghat to Dilloo, for which the ruler of the Gurn Guddee shall receive year by year the sum of Government rupees five only. If any Zemindar shall disturb or annoy Dilloo (in his possession) the ruler (of the Gurn Guddee) shall fine that individual: all other claims (with the exception of the five rupees) are given absolutely and free by the ruler of the Gurn Guddee."
  The other Rs.3 referred to by the Chief Justice as occasionally given were a "nuzzur," or voluntary offering to the priest. The motive alleged for this gratuitous injustice was that this mohunt was in the habit of lending elephants, carriages, and other conveniences to Indian officials. Of the remaining sum of Rs.2,400, the Judge assigned the greater part to the creditors of one of the three brothers or owners, and he also ordered Rs.234 to be deducted for Government costs, though it was said that this was contrary to the Land Acquisition Act, and some Rs.900 was all that was left for the owners. It might be asked why the three dispossessed Zemindars did not avail themselves of their right of appeal? It was the extreme poverty to which they were reduced which deprived them of this resource. They had not the means to fee counsel to place their case before the High Court. Captain Hearsey's letter says of the eviction, after the decree of Mr. Laidman—
  "In the beginning of November, 1882—the men had refused, at my advice, to quit their houses and homes—the superintendent of the Dhoon sent for all the males of the village to his office, which was in Mussoorie, about four miles off, and, as in duty bound, they attended. It was a cold winter day, alternate heavy showers of sleet and rain deluged and froze the earth, the wind cut like a razor. During the absence of the men, at the order of the local authorities, certain Mahomedan coolies, Awghanies, broke open their doors, thrust the women and children out into the cold winter blast, and pitched their clothes, bedding, cooking utensils, and stores of food after them into the rain and sleet. When the men returned late in the afternoon from the superintendent's office, they found their women and children waiting in the open in the soaking rain for their arrival, their winter store of food damaged by rain, and they and their wives and little ones homeless and shelterless. I believe for that night they
  8
  took shelter in the Barlow-gunj bazaar—a small bazaar belonging to a member of our family. This is the action of the myrmidons of the State landlord, the Government of India."
  This description might possibly remind their Lordships of the Glenbeigh evictions; but there was this difference—the person who caused those evictions was owed five years' rent, and would have taken half-a-year's rent, so that he was evicting for a 10th part of what was his own; but the Government of the North-West Provinces had evicted for what was not their own, and for which they had not paid a 22nd part. He was sure that his noble Friend the late Secretary of State for India would not defend this eviction, because he and others were pledged by their Leader to the doctrine that evictions justified the Plan of the Campaign. He was not aware that there was any record of any public utterances of the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India as to evictions; but he was too faithful and devoted an adherent of the Prime Minister to separate himself from his policy; and he only asked the noble Viscount to carry out in India the admirable provision of the Land Bill for Ireland, which would shortly be before the House, for paper evictions by legal process converting a tenant into a caretaker, and that no actual evictions should take place in India under the Land Acquisition Act until all the appeals had been heard and the cases legally concluded. There were two things which the India Office might suggest to the Secretary of State in answer to the case he had now stated. One was, that the three brothers were not the owners, but only occupancy tenants; and the other, that whatever was done to them was done in due course of law. It would be a mere quibble, which the Secretary of State would not succeed in inducing anyone to believe, to assert that a chief rent of Rs.5 constituted the owner of it the owner of the whole property; or considering the deed granting Ami Ghat in perpetuity for a chief rent of Rs.5, that the owner of the chief rent had any further interest in or claim to interference with the property; or that persons owning land in perpetuity, subject to the trifling chief rent of Rs.5, were not the real owners. Those who received the chief rents of Scotch feus were termed superior landlords, but they had no rights over the land beyond

  9
  receiving those chief rents. The mohunt, therefore, ought not to have had an assessor to value Arni Ghat; but this was done in order to give the Government of the North-West Provinces an extra voice against the Zemindars' assessor. As to this expropriation having been carried out according to law, it was stated, in opposition to that view, that the Small Causes Court in which this spoliation was decreed was not a Court competent under the Act to try such a case. It was also stated that the notices and proclamations required by the Act were not made in this case. Notice had to be given in the Government Gazette, and also by beat of drum, or by notices posted on the buildings on the estate or elsewhere, that the land is to be so taken. That many abuses had taken place under this Act was shown by the Circular recently issued and published last month by the Board of Revenue, calling upon the collectors and commissioners to exercise more personal supervision in cases arising out of the Land Acquisition Act. Now, though this expropriation took place a good while ago, it was only comparatively lately that the affair got into the Indian newspapers; and the late Secretary of State for India knew nothing of it, and it was never brought under his notice. The whole responsibility of this injustice and oppression, if it should be upheld, would, therefore, belong to the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India. By responsibility, he did not mean responsibility to Parliament, which was an obsolete and unmeaning phrase, but that responsibility in the next world which could not be evaded, and which the noble Viscount would not be inclined to deride. He would now relate the administrative abuses and arbitrary conduct to which this spoliation led the Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Provinces. Mr. Laidman, who had decided this case against the three Zemindars of Arni Ghat, in subsequent proceedings on the 9th of February, 1885, addressed these Rajpoots from the Bench with the words—"Soor! bad-mash! haramzadeh!" or, "Pigs! blackguards! bastards! you have appealed our decree to the High Court; "then he repeated the bad words, and told the peon to turn them out of Court. Captain Hearsey, who was present in Court, and who had befriended these Rajpoots, wrote a letter to The Statesman of Calcutta
  10
  narrating these unseemly words from the Judicial Bench. For this, Sir Alfred Lyall directed Mr. Laidman to prosecute Captain Hearsey for defamation; he could not brook any criticism even of an unworthy member of the Civil Service. Accordingly, Captain Hearsey was prosecuted in July, 1885. The Chief Justice summed up against the prosecution, and the jury acquitted Captain Hearsey in five minutes. There were seven Christian and two Native jurors; the foreman was the local manager of the Agra Savings Bank, and another juror was connected with another bank. It was naturally to have been expected that Sir Alfred Lyall should have bowed to this judicial decision; but their Lordships would be astonished to learn that he replied by promoting Mr. Laidman to a higher post, with additional salary of Rs.300 a month, although he had just been shown to be unfit for the Bench, and tainted with perjury. It was also stated that he remitted, or ordered to be refunded to Mr. Laidman, the costs which had been given against him in the recent trial. If the Secretary of State should find that Mr. Laidman's costs had been repaid to him out of public money, would he direct that Captain Hearsey also should be reimbursed the Rs.3,000 that he had to pay for his defence? Not satisfied with that he wrote a Minute or Resolution, condemnatory of or adversely criticizing the Chief Justice's judgment, and sent it round in a semi-secret way to his judicial subordinates, for it was sent round to them by a messenger, with orders that they were to take note of it, but not take a copy of it. The Secretary of State would hardly be able to uphold or excuse this method of the Lieutenant Governor of a Province of securing the respect of the junior members of the Judicial Body for the Chief Justice. Their Lordships would probably be told—and, if so, he should entirely concur with the statement—that Sir Alfred Lyall was a man of great ability, culture, and energy, and an ornament of the Indian Civil Service; but he had the defect of caring more for the interests of the Civil Service than for the interests of the people of India; and in these affairs he seemed to have lost his judgment and to have exemplified the saying—Corruptio optimi pessima. Sir Alfred Lyall had, however, done an

  11
  injury to the Indian Civil Service, since the Press had contrasted his conduct with that of Lord Reay in the Cambay case; and many would be led to say that the Lieutenant Governorships of Bengal and the North-West Provinces ought to be filled up by men fresh from England, and not by members of the Civil Service. The wrong done under the sanction of the Lieutenant Governor had borne fruit, and formed a precedent. Quite recently, the municipality of Mussoorie, when wanting a piece of land for the disposal of their sewage, offered Rs.10,000 to their Vice President for a piece belonging to him; later they wanted to take for Rs.1,000 only a plot from the villagers of Kiar Kuly, half the size of that for which they had offered Rs.10,000. These villagers escaped from expropriation, because the medical officer would not allow this land to be used for the purpose, as it would have contaminated the water going to the Goorkha lines. The municipality was now attempting to expropriate some other villagers for an inadequate price, and although the matter was not legally concluded, the municipality had taken possession of the land and placed its filth upon it. He concluded by moving for a copy of Sir Alfred Lyall's Resolution on the Judgment of the Chief Justice.
  Moved, "For a Copy of Sir Alfred Lyall's resolution on the Judgment of the Chief Justice."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS), in reply, said, it was not his intention to enter into the subject of future legislation, or discuss the question generally; he would content himself with simply answering the Question put before him. On the first two clauses of the Question, it would be enough to say that the decision of the subordinate Judge of Dehra Dun in the case referred to by the noble Lord was appealed against in the High Court of the North-West Provinces by the tenants; that their appeal was dismissed with costs, their own counsel admitting that he had no case; and that if there had been in the decision appealed against either any failure in substantial justice or any defect in the form of procedure, it would certainly have been taken notice of by the High Court. As regards the third clause of the Question,
  12
  Captain Hearsey stated, in a Memorial received from him, that he had sent to the Viceroy a Petition for transmission to the Secretary of State. He (Viscount Cross) did not propose to take any action, unless he received a representation on the subject from or through the Government of India in the ordinary course.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he was satisfied with the noble Viscount's reply, as the matter was under the examination of the Indian Government, and he would withdraw the Motion. The noble Viscount, however, had been misinformed as to the appeal.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

IRISH LAND LAW BILL.—(No. 58.)
(The Lord Privy Seal, Earl Cadogan.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he wished to point out that since the Bill was read a second time, Her Majesty's Government had altered what must be considered as the most important part of the Bill in a very serious way. They had proposed to omit the three Clauses 21, 22, and 23 in the Bill, dealing with the power of the Court to stay eviction, the jurisdiction of the County Court, and the power, in certain cases, to continue the tenant in his holding, notwithstanding his bankruptcy, and substitute new clauses for them of vital importance to Irish landlords generally. Now those clauses had been in the hands of noble Lords but a very short time, and they contained very important provisions indeed, and, although he for one and, he believed, other Irish landlords were perfectly ready to consider those Amendments, if possible, in a favourable manner, they still felt that the Amendments in question were of such vital importance that some time ought to be given, not only for Irish Landlords to consult among themselves as to whether they met the objections previously raised, but also that they might be able to refer the new clauses to those in Ireland who were best able to judge, in order that they might have their opinions to strengthem them in any action they might think fit to take in that

13
House. He wished to know whether, supposing their Lordships agreed to accept temporarily those three clauses, the Government would consent to recommit the Bill subsequently in order that noble lords might have an opportunity of carefully considering them, and, perhaps, proposing Amendments upon them if they were so advised.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he thought the Amendments met the objections raised on the second reading only to a limited extent. He objected to the clauses as they now stood, however, not on the ground that he did not wish to gee some equitable jurisdiction given to County Court Judges, or whoever were to be the authorities eventually under the Act; but, because he did not believe that those County Court Judges could overtake the work which would be thrown upon them if the clauses passed in their present form. He had taken considerable trouble to ascertain, and found that authorities in Ireland and elsewhere entirely coincided with him on that point. Time ought to be given for inquiries into the matter, and he should be exceedingly glad if the Government could see their way to accept the suggestion of his noble Friend (Lord Inchiquin) and leave those subjects an open question until the other clauses, to which he believed very little serious objection would now be made, had been considered.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he would suggest as the most convenient way out of the difficulty, that their Lordships should that evening proceed seriatim with the first 20 clauses of the Bill, and that on coming then to the three new clauses, the Government should consent to re-port Progress, in order that they might resume again on Thursday next. In doing that they would have made very considerable progress with the measure, and one of the objects that would be accomplished by that course would be that their Lordships would be able to consider those very important and interesting clauses, which required to be weighed in every line before becoming the law of the land, besides which they should have a statement and explanation from the Government of the real import and bearing of the clauses.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNwas understood to express himself in a similar sense.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR, FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that he agreed with the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitzgerald) that they should go into Committee at once; but with regard to the question as to what their Lordships should do when they came to the 21st clause, he should be sorry if the House then came to a Resolution such as that suggested by the noble and learned Lord to adjourn for another considerable period. He did not think anything would be gained by that course. If noble Lords were not able to ascertain the import and bearing of the clauses now, they were not likely to do so by Friday. The Government felt the extreme difficulty of the subject in framing the clauses so as to meet every view. That had been felt by everybody who had attempted to deal with it. It was not only difficult in itself, by reason of the state of the law, but on account of the strangely varying testimony with respect to the probable bearing of each portion of the clauses as originally drawn. It required, they might say, an expert to know what Irish tenants would do, and what Irish County Court Judges would do; but the worst of it was that experts were not yet agreed upon the subject, and they directly differed with each other upon it, and, therefore, there was undoubtedly more than usual perplexity and difficulty in adapting the language of the clauses to the necessities of the legislation the Government had in view. He should be extremely sorry if their Lordships, when they reached these clauses, were to adjourn. What the Government wanted was not an adjournment, but discussion, in order to hear from noble Lords precisely what were the objections which they took to the new clauses. By an adjournment before they came to the clauses, they would be as much in the dark as over as to what noble Lords thought. It was important to know what the danger was which certain noble Lords anticipated; and they could not consider how the language of the clauses should best be drawn, in order to meet these apprehensions until they knew where the danger lay. He would, therefore, deprecate any proposal which. would prevent a full discussion of the clauses. If, after the clauses had been

15
discussed, and they had gone through the Bill, it should be the pleasure of the House to recommit the Bill as to these clauses, that would be perfectly in Order, and might, perhaps, meet the views of some of those who had spoken on this subject. It was the desire of the Government to give every facility for bringing this Bill into accordance with the feelings of noble Lords so far as it was consistent with the main object of the Bill. He would, therefore, recommend that they should go on with the Bill that night; and if they did not finish it, they might do so on Friday, and might then recommit it to some day after that.
THE EARL OF KILMOREYsaid, he hoped that the Government would allow an adjournment after reaching the 21st clause, in consideration of the vital importance of the question to those who were Irish landowners.
House in Committee.

ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES.
Amendments of General Application.
Clause 1 (Leaseholders).
LORD FITZGERALD,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 12, after the word "holding," the insertion of the words "and if such lessee so elects," said, the effect of it would be that it should only be on the desire of the leaseholder that he should be admitted to the benefits of the Act of 1881. No application for revision of a leas9 could thus be made by a landlord. The importance of this Bill could not be overestimated, and every word of it required to be considered, and every provision read, with the greatest care. The original idea of the Act of 1881 had been to provide protection to yearly tenants against what might prove to be excessive rents, and also to give them security of tenure. He could never see why leaseholders were not admitted to the benefits of the Act of 1881; but he would point out that they ought only to be so on different terms from those given to yearly tenants. That exclusion had created great discontent. It was now proposed that leaseholders, without waiting for the expiration of their leases, should be at once brought within the provisions of the Bill. He only regretted that the principle was not carried further, and extended to all leases, without being confined to those expiring
16
within 60 years of the passing of the Land Act. A Bill extending the provisions of the Act of 1881 to all leaseholders at the election of the lessee had been read a second time with the assent of the Leader of the House of Commons; it was backed by Mr. T. W. Russell, Lord Ernest Hamilton, Mr. Lea, Mr. Johnston, and Mr. Sinclair, all Members, he believed, representing the North of Ireland. There was, however, a large class of leaseholders who did not want their leases interfered with, and who looked with alarm at this impending legislation which would reduce them to yearly tenancies. In some cases, where the leaseholder would find his lease broken without his having a voice in the matter, the rent he would have to pay might be larger than that which he had paid before, owing to his having had a lease fixed at a low rent. He, therefore, proposed the Amendment to meet such cases of leaseholders who did not wish to have their leases broken.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 12, after ("holding,") to insert ("and if such lessee so elects.")—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, that the Government found it impossible to accede to the Amendment; because, if it were earned out, it would result in a one-sided and unfair state of things. No doubt, it was the object of the Bill to give relief in cases where it was required; but he was not aware that that relief should be given to the lease holder and not to the landlord. If the Amendment were agreed to, the tenant would have a right to go into the Land Court and have his lease broken, whereas the landlord would have no such right to break a lease if he so desired. He therefore hoped that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald) would not press the Amendment.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he thought that, in one sense, it might be described as one-sided; but, on the other hand, if the clause were adopted without amendment, it would result in a great hardship to many tenants who were now holding under leases, because it was not a mere question of rent. By the Act of 1881, a landlord could resume possession of a farm for his own purposes, or for those of a relation; and a farm held by a leaseholder would be placed in the same position. The object of the Bill

17
was to produce satisfaction and content, by the giving of relief to leaseholders; but unless the Amendment was agreed to, though the clause would give great satisfaction to those who were entitled to go into Court and have their rents reduced, it would produce great dissatisfaction amongst others who came to get the reverse of a benefit in order that their neighbours might be benefited. It was not merely that the landlord would be entitled to have the rent fixed in the lease raised, but the clause would, under certain circumstances, entitle him to resume possession. ["No, no!"] Yes; for the tenant would be thrown into the position of a tenant under the Land Act of 1881, and that measure enabled a landlord, for certain purposes, to resume possession. The clause, unless altered as suggested by the Amendment, would create great disatisfaction and discontent.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, that, in the interests of the Irish landlords, they ought to support the Amendment. It might appear rather one-sided; but still, with his knowledge of the North of Ireland, he thought the clause required to be amended in the direction suggested. He did not believe the working of the clause, as it stood, would be satisfactory from the tenants' point of view where land was held at a low rent. It would be repugnant to any good landlord to break his tenant's lease against the will of such tenant; and, speaking as an Irish landlord, he appealed to noble Lords who owned land in Ireland to support the Amendment, as being the course which Irish landlords who had not seats in the House would themselves take.
LORD THRINGsaid, he thought the Bill would be most unfair to mortgagees, by breaking leases which might recently have been pledged as valuable securities.
EARL CADOGANsaid, the lease would not be at once broken, but only in certain eventualities.
LORD THRING, continuing, said, the clause would break every lease in Ireland, even if the tenant was perfectly satisfied with his position. [Ministerial cries of "No, no!"] Such would, undoubtedly, be the effect of the Bill. It would work immense injustice.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he felt bound to corroborate the statement of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Thring). The clause would at once
18
break every lease in Ireland, for all would be brought under the direct action of the Bill. He could not see why the Government should object to the Amendment. It was only in appearance, and not in reality, that the Amendment was one-sided. The fact that the law enabled A to have his lease broken ought in no way to give the landlord the right of breaking B's lease against B's will. Because one leaseholder got his rent reduced, another leaseholder ought not to be liable to have his raised. If one man were concerned in both operations, it would be just, but different men were concerned. He could not imagine that there was a landlord in Ireland who, having given a beneficial lease to a respectable tenant, would wish to break it, merely because another tenant, whose circumstances were different, was enabled by law to get rid of his lease. He understood and appreciated the reasons which induced the Government to admit leaseholders to the benefits of the Land Act; but he could not approve the limitation of those benefits in the manner proposed by this clause. The Government had accepted the state of the law as they had inherited it from their Predecessors, and were not responsible for it. They retained their former objection to the principle; but they thought it necessary to admit these leaseholders to the benefit of the Act. He could not admit that it was a real and just corollary that when leaseholders wished to remain with their leases, they should be forced to give them up.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, that by the legislation introduced in 1881, the holders of leases which would expire in 60 years after that date were given the right of continuing in possession as present tenants after the expiration of the lease. The present Bill assumed that the 60 years had now expired, and gave at once to leaseholders the same status which they would acquire under the Act of 1881 after the lapse of more than 50 years. They would, in fact, become present tenants, subject to the terms and conditions of the leases held by them. Under the clause under consideration the provisions of each lease would, therefore, remain effective until either the landlord or the tenant should object to them. He would ask if it was reasonable to have an entirely one-sided arrangement by which one of the parties

19
would have the right to examine into the rent, while the other would be denied the right of saying a word on the subject? The unanimous report of the Cowper Commission was to the effect that lessors, as well as lessees, should have a, right of application, and all the evidence that he had read taken by the Commission supported that part of the Report. The broad question before them was whether they were to give an option to the tenant alone, and give no voice to the landlord. To that the Government were unable to assent, and, therefore, they could not agree to accept the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, his first feeling on reading the clause was entirely in favour of the contention of the Government; but further consideration, and hearing the remarks of the noble Earl (the Earl of Leitrim) to-night, had induced grave doubts in his mind, whether this would be a power which the landlords of Ireland would be able to exercise. Most of the witnesses examined before Lord Cowper's Commission had also expressed the opinion that the right to break a lease ought not to be given to the landlord. If a landlord had one tenant holding on a lease at a rent which would probably be reduced on application, and two others holding on very low rents, he asked any of their Lordships whether, if he were placed in that position, and. the tenant holding at a high rent went and got his lease broken, he would go to the other two tenants and say that because the one tenant had got his lease broken, and his rent reviewed, he must take proceedings in order to have their rents reviewed also? So strong was his feeling in favour of covenant, that he should feel that to be a dishonourable act. No Act of Parliament would ever induce him to go to these men and address them in such language. He rejoiced to hear from a noble Earl, who was an Irish landlord, the true sentiment which he believed would animate the great majority of Irish landlords. He (the Duke of Argyll) felt strongly against the whole principle of the clause. He admitted the argument that if leases were broken in Ireland at all, they should be broken all over the country; but, looking at its abstract application, he felt that the clause as it now stood, and with-
20
out the Amendment, would be likely to create the greatest possible dissatisfaction in particular parts of Ireland, and, at the same time, fail to supply honourable and generous landlords with any advantage. Good landlords would never break one man's lease with a view to an augmentation of rent because the leases of other tenants had been broken with the result that their rents had been reduced. To break a lease with such an object in view would be what he would again call a dishonourable act, and he did not think so meanly of Irish landlords as to believe them to be capable of it.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he sincerely hoped the Government would see their way to retain the provision in their Bill. If there was an advantage given to one side it should be given to the other. He maintained that a man had a right to elect whether he would come under the Bill or not.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the clause made it possible to break all leases; but he would ask—was there a single landlord who, because he lost over one lease, would break another lease to the disadvantage of his tenants? He thought that was a sufficient argument to make him vote for his noble Friend.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he hoped they would have some notice taken of the point raised as to mortgages.
LORD MACNAGHTENexpressed the hope that the Government would accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would point out that, besides the rights of tenants, there were also rights of public law to be considered; and the question was, what had they a right to do in respect to those landlords who were not all represented in that House, and whose rights deserved consideration from them as well as the rights of tenants. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Thring) said that the Government did not dissemble their dislike to the Act of 1881; but he (the Marquess of Salisbury) must say that that Act, so far as it dealt with fair rent, professed, at least, to be scrupulously impartial between landlord and tenant; and it provided that, if the tenant might obtain a reduction of too large a rent, the landlord might obtain an increase of too small a

21
rent. The object of the Act, in short, was to give a fair rent. Well, it was found by a great many leaseholders that it was a great hardship on them to be excluded from that legislation, and therefore it was proposed that they should be put in the same position as the tenants whose lot they envied. But the Government were now told that they were not to follow the precedent of the Act of 1881; that they were to enable the rent to be reduced when too high, but that they were not to let it be raised if it were too low. On what ground was that proposed? If the landlords were a race with no rights, then he could understand it; but if Parliament was to hold the balance between the two parties, surely Parliament would first treat the leaseholders as they had treated the tenants-at-will, and allow rents to be raised when they ought to be raised, and lowered when they ought to be lowered. As to mortgagees, it was said—"Suppose that the mortgage had been obtained upon the property subject to this low rent; if you raise the rent, you destroy the security of the mortgagee." Well, but it did not occur to the noble Lord who said that, that the same thing might happen in the opposite direction, and that where a landlord had leased his property and built himself a comfortable house, and possibly mortgaged his land on the security of the leases, he might find, if this Amendment were adopted, his house too large for him and his mortgages broken. He would remind the Committee that there were poor landlords as well as poor tenants in Ireland, and he wanted them to mete out to the poor landlords the same justice that they meted out to the poor tenant. He asked for no advantage for the one over the other in dealing between man and man.
THE EARL of SELBORNEsaid, he would point out that in the case of yearly tenants, either party could, by a short notice, put an end to the tenancy; and as within those limits of time, either party could alter the terms of the holding, it was manifestly reasonable to say that that there should be the reciprocal right to go into Court and have the rent revised. But now they had two classes to consider besides the landlords. They had the tenants, who had a fixed term and wished to give it up, and they had the tenants who had a fixed term and did not wish to give it up; and he could
22
not see why they should give away the estate of the one because they thought there wore reasons of policy for helping the other to relieve themselves from a position in which they did not like to remain.
EARL COWPERsaid, the Royal Commission had recommended that on every occasion when the rents had been made as low, or lower than Griffith's valuation, the landlord should not have power to bring the tenants into Court. The Government had paid no attention to that recommendation. As he had to decide between the Amendment and allowing leases of all kinds, however low, to be brought into Court, he thought he should be acting least contrary to the recommendation which he had signed, in common with the other Members of the Commission, if he voted for the Amendment.
On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 62; Not-Contents 130: Majority 68.

CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Grafton, D.

St. Albans, D.

Herschell, L.

Hothfield, L.

Northampton, M.

Houghton, L.

Ripon, M.

Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Camperdown, E.

Chesterfield, E.

Kensington, L.

Cowper, E.

Lawrence, L.

Derby, E.

Lingen, L.

Ducie, E.

Lovat, L.

Fife, E.

Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

Fortescue, E.

Granville, E.

Lyttelton, L.

Kimberley, E.

Macnaghten, L.

Minto, E.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Northbrook, E.

Monkswell, L.

Selborne, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Spencer, E.

Strafford, E.

Poltimore, L.

Sydney, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Oxenbridge, V.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Ashburton, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Belper, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Robartes, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Brabourne, L.

Bramwell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) [Teller.]

Talbot de Malahide, L.

De Mauley, L.

Thring, L.

Dormer, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Ventry, L.

Wolverton, L.

FitzGerald, L. [Teller.]

23

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Hawarden. V. (E. de Montalt.)

Cranbrook, V. (L. President.)

Sidmouth, V.

Torrington, V.

Cadogan, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Alington, L.

Ardilaun, L.

Buckingham and Chandos, D.

Ashbourne, L.

Aveland, L.

Portland, D.

Balfour of Burley, L.

Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk)

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Braybrooke, L.

Abergavenny, M.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Bristol, M.

Hertford, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Salisbury, M.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Amherst, E.

Annesley, E.

Chelmsford, L.

Aylesford, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Bathurst, E.

Belmore, E.

Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

Buckinghamshire, B.

Clonmell, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Coventry, E.

Colchester, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Dartrey, E.

de Ros, L.

Denbigh, E.

Deramore, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Dig by, L.

Dinevor, L.

Egerton, L.

Feversham, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Harewood, E.

Esher, L.

Harrowby, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Kilmorey, E.

Lanesborough, E.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) [Teller.]

Lindsay, E.

Lucan, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Macclesfield, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Mar, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Harlech, L.

Milltown, E.

Harris, L.

Morton, E.

Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

Nelson, E.

Northesk, E.

Hillingdon, L.

Onslow, E.

Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

Orkney, E.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Howard de Walden, L.

Hylton, L.

Powis, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Ravensworth, E.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Romney, E.

Rosse, E.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Rosslyn, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) [Teller.]

Scarborough, E.

Stanhope, E.

Lamington, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

Leconfield, L.

Lurgan, L.

Tankerville, E.

Lyveden, L.

Verulam, E.

Massy, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

Yarborough, E.

Zetland, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Bangor, V.

Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

Bridport, V.

Cross, V.

Mostyn, L.

Exmouth, V.

O'Neill, L.

Gough, V.

Penryhn, L.

Hardinge, V.

Polwarth, L.

24

Rodney, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Rossmore, L.

Templemore, L.

Rowton, L.

Tollemache, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

Scarsdale, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Winmarleigh, L.

Wynford, L.

Sinclair, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Stanley of Preston, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Amendment disagreed to.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 13, after ("conditions,") insert ("and subject to the same right of resumption.")—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he objected to the Amendment that it would not merely make a leaseholder a present tenant, but would make him a present tenant with something less than the rights of a present tenant, because the landlord would have a special and exceptional right of resumption.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it would be better that the Amendment should stand over till the Report.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that in consequence of the decision at which their Lordships had arrived, he would not move the next Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name.
THE EARL OF BELMORE THE EARL OF BELMORE moved an Amendment, providing that the lessee shall not be deemed to be a present tenant where substantial consideration "is shown by the said lease to have been given therefor to the lessor by the lessee," and such lessee objects to being deemed a present tenant.
Amendment moved,
In page 1, line 18, to leave out ("has been given for the said lease,") and insert ("is shown by the said lease to have been given therefor to the lessor by the lessee.")—(The Earl of Belmore.)
EARL CADOGANsaid, he thought the noble Earl might, perhaps, be satisfied with the Amendment he (Earl Cadogan) had put on the Paper dealing with this point. The Government preferred that Amendment to the one moved by the noble Earl.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl Cadogan), the following Amendment made:—In line 19, after ("lease,") insert ("to the lessor or with his knowledge").
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in moving an Amendment providing that the lessee shall not be deemed to be a "present tenant" where substantial consideration has been given for the lease "by the lessee, or by the lessor, and such lessee or lessor objects to the tenant being deemed a present tenant," said, the principle involved in the Proviso was that, in fixing a fair rent, the Act of 1881 laid down that the Court should hear the persons, and having regard to the interests of the landlord and the tenant respectively, and considering all the circumstances of the case and the holding, might determine what a fair rent was. Undoubtedly, under those general words, the Court ought to consider what was paid on the one hand by the landlord, and on the other by the tenant. But it was a great fallacy to suppose that the tenant's was the only case worthy of consideration, and he thought the attention of the Court should be drawn to the valuable consideration, in the form of permanent improvements or otherwise, given by the landlord. His object, therefore, was to protect the landlord in all cases where he had given such valuable consideration. In this connection, he would relate two instances which had been brought to his notice, of tenants of Lord Lansdowne, against whom such an indecent and unjust persecution was being carried on, a persecution which, in all the circumstances of the case, was the most outrageous that had occurred. He happened to have heard of the cases that morning, not from Lord Lansdowne, because he had had no communication with him, but from another source. Of the two persons who were leaders in the agitation, one was a person named Dunn, who held five contiguous farms. The agitators pretended that all the agitation was in favour of poor men holding small holdings; but the principal agitator against Lord Lansdowne was what might well be called a land-grabber, paying a rent of £1,367. He was a capitalist farmer, and not a poor man at all; and he had enjoyed a long lease during prosperous times. Look at the outlay to which Lord Lansdowne had
26
been put regarding these farms. Lord Lansdowne had laid out £2,625 on the drainage of these farms, which sum he received by loan from the Government at 6½ per cent, and for which Lord Lansdowne was only charging Mr. Dunn 2½ per cent, thereby actually losing money largely on the transaction by which this gentleman benefited. The other gentleman to whom he referred was Mr. Kilbride. This gentleman held two farms at a rent of £760. What had Lord Lansdowne laid out on these farms? It was commonly, but most unjustly, said that landlords in Ireland never spent any money on their estates. Lord Lansdowne, in this case, had laid out no less a sum than £3,179, which he had borrowed at 6½ per cent. He had only charged this gentleman, who was hounding Irishmen in Canada against the Viceroy, 4 per cent, he himself paying the balance of 2½ per cent. He maintained it was monstrous, when there were plenty of cases undoubtedly in Ireland of this kind where landlords had expended large sums, that the attention of the Courts should not be directed by the Act of Parliament to cases where the landlord had given valuable consideration, as well as to those cases where the improvements had been effected by the tenants. Even if Lord Lansdowne had not laid out a single sixpence he held that there was a case for compensation. He did not know the length of the leases of those gentlemen or when they expired; but looking at the prices of agricultural produce during the last 30 years, he knew that at least during 20 of those years, prices were so high that there was keen competition for every vacant farm. Seeing that such tenants had enjoyed the benefit of high prices during 20 years, it was neither just nor reasonable that they should be allowed to come into Court, and plead the recent exceptional prices, and get a judicial rent without the attention of the Court being directed to circumstances so clamant as this, and without provision being made for the landlords as regards their expenditures. The reason of the case was quite manifest, and he would conclude, therefore, by moving the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment moved,
In page 1, line 19, to leave out from ("lease") to end of the Proviso, and insert ("by the

27
lessee or by the lessor, and such lessee or lessor objects to the tenant being deemed a present tenant.")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
EARL CADOGANsaid, he quite appreciated the point put by the noble Duke, and, undoubtedly, no better illustration could be given of the object of the Amendment than that of the case of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne), which had created so much sympathy all over the country. He would suggest, however, to the noble Duke that his object was met by the first paragraph on page 2—
"Provided also, that when under the provisions of this section an application is made to the Court to fix a judicial rent for a holding held under a lease, the Court shall disallow such application if the Court is satisfied that the landlord or his predecessors in title has or have made permanent improvements on the holding, the unexhausted value of which improvements is at the time of making such application not less than four times the yearly rent of the holding."
If those words were not adequate to meet the case put by the noble Duke, the Government, sympathizing with the object, would consider the desirability of amending them.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he did not think the object he had in view would be met by the words quoted; but he would not press his Amendment at the present stage.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
LORD FITZGERALD LORD FITZGERALD moved, as an Amendment, to omit altogether the first paragraph on page 2, referred to by the noble Earl (Earl Cadogan). He urged that whereas the Bill was promoted with a view to removing discontent and every sense of injustice, the paragraph in question would involve a most complicated inquiry and litigation, and be a source of dissatisfaction besides being wholly unnecessary.
Amendment moved, in page 2, to omit the first sub-section.—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
LORD CASTLETOWNearnestly condemned the tribunals which had to carry out the Act of 1881.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that in the particular case of improvements mentioned in the clause, it was necessary that they should have some technical words, as there was a natural
28
prejudice in all minds against people who did not follow the ordinary practice of the country-side, and therefore he thought that they could hardly trust the Court to deal with the matter without words of this nature being inserted. Whether four times the yearly rent was not too much for a calculation of the unexhausted value of the improvements, he was not certain, and they were willing to consider any Amendments upon that subject. Some limitation, however, was necessary. He would frankly confess to noble Lords from Ireland, that it was not merely a care for Irish property that had led the Government to introduce this clause. They were not only anxious to do what was popular and was the cause of contentment, but also to leave upon the Statute Book nothing but provisions that were just in themselves; because they knew from experience, that injustice was prolific, and that an unjust enactment placed upon the Statute Book would produce others still more unjust. He was anxious that they should draw a broad line of distinction between what wag alleged to have created the necessity for such legislation in Ireland—namely, the practice of the tenants making improvements, and the case which existed in both parts of this Island. It was very important that that distinction should be clearly established, and, therefore, that some such provision as this should be placed on the Statute Book, especially when they were taking such an exceptional step as breaking leases.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he felt bound to protest against the idea that they had Courts in Ireland administering Land Laws which could not be trusted, and he thought that any legislation which rested upon that contention must be vicious. If Her Majesty's Government held the view that the Courts were not to be trusted, their proper course would have been to bring in a Bill to reform those Courts.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhoped that there would be no misconstruction placed upon his words. What he did say was, that some of those who had to carry out those Acts were liable, as all men were, to a prejudice in this one particular case.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that it was a very unsafe thing to legislate on the principle of distrust of the Courts. One result of the clause would

29
be, that the present tenants created by the Bill would be on a different footing from all other present tenants in Ireland under the Act of 1881, and confusion would be almost certain to ensue. The proposal contained in the clause, he considered a most unadvisable one to make.
LORD FITZGERALDdefended the Courts, which, he said, were presided over by men of very high character.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, what he gathered from the evidence before the Cowper Commission was that no Courts were competent to decide in this case, not because they were dishonest, but because Parliament had given them a function which no Court could discharge. Their Lordships would remember that within two years after the operation of this Act, the Ulster tenants came in a body to Sir George Trevelyan, then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and remonstrated with him on the rents which were then fixed by the Commissioners, and urged that they were great supporters of the Government of the day. Did the House not remember that, instead of the matter being treated as one for judicial decision, it was considered as one for political action, and that Sir George Trevelyan, honest and honourable man as he was, was obliged to fence with them? He told them the Executive Government had nothing to do with rents; but before the deputation left his room, he distinctly said the Government would keep an eye on these valuations, and if they found the interests of the tenants were not protected, they would know how to apply a remedy. That was the spirit in which the matter was regarded.
EARL SPENCERsaid, that his recollection of the incident referred to was that the deputation that waited upon the Chief Secretary complained of the system under which valuators had been appointed to the Courts. The answer of the Chief Secretary was explained in the subsequent debate in the House of Commons, when it was shown that the appointment of valuators had not enabled the Commissioners to dispose of the cases with sufficient speed. In fact, he stated in the House of Commons that as due expedition was not shown, the Commissioners, in conjunction with the Government, had decided to alter and reconstitute the Sub-Commission.
LORD CASTLETOWNsaid, that the principal work under the Land Act fell upon the Land Commissioners, and those were the men in whom they had no confidence.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Amendment moved, to add, at the end of the Clause I., the following Provise:—
"Provided, That this section shall not apply to any lease made before the passing of said Act of 1881, where the Court shall be satisfied that, by agreement between the landlord and the tenant of the holding, entered into and made after the passing of said Act of 1881, the rent reserved by the lease has been reduced for the residue of the term."—(The Earl of Erne.)
EARL CADOGAN: said, he could not accept the Amendment, because he thought it was unnecessary. He did not see why the fact that a landlord had entered into an agreement with his tenant to reduce the rent fixed by the lease should disentitle the tenant to have a fair rent fixed. If the reduction made to the tenant by the landlord brought the rent down to a fair rent, then this Court would not interfere with it; whereas, if the reduction did not bring it quite down to a fair rent, the Commissioners would only reduce it to that point.
THE EARL OF CORKsaid, he thought that the Amendment would be only fair towards landlords who, like himself, had come to amicable terms with their tenants. It would be rather hard that, having reduced their rents for some years past, they should now be placed in a worse position than those landlords who had refused to reduce the rents of those tenants who held under leases. It was no satisfaction to him as a landlord to know that he could go into Court, for he did not wish to do so. In fairness to those landlords who had acted generously, some such provision as that proposed by the noble Earl ought to be inserted in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that in no way could the clause be unjust, for no reduction would be made to a lower level than the fair rent. He would suggest, therefore, that the noble Earl might be content with an Amendment directing that diminutions of rent resulting from such agreements as he contemplated in his Proviso should be taken into consideration by the Court when fixing a fair rent.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he thought that when a tenant whose rent had been reduced in the circumstances described in the Proviso, repaired to the Laud Court to seek a judicial rent, the special bargain between him and the landlord ought to be treated as rescinded, so that the original and not the reduced rent might be taken into consideration. To enact that would be to follow the legal principle, that when a man was dissatisfied with a bargain, he could not retain that portion of it which he considered beneficial to himself, while seeking to be released of the covenants to which he objected. He had not a word to say against those who had been reducing rents in Ireland; but he was satisfied that they felt they had been sent on a mission of reduction.
Amendment disagreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 (Judicial rent may commence on date of application to the court), agreed to.
Clause 3 (Consolidation of proceedings in ejectment, and application for fair rent).
LORD FITZGERALD LORD FITZGERALD moved an Amendment limiting the application of a clause to ejectments brought in Civil Bill Courts. The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to prevent delay.
Amendment agreed to.
Moved, "To omit Sub-section 2 of the Clause."—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
Motion agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF ERNE, in moving the addition of a new clause after Clause 3, said, he thought it would be a better arrangement than leaving the selection to the Judges, and he hoped the matter would be considered by the Government.
Amendment moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following Clause:—
"The Lord Lieutenant shall from time to time appoint independent valuers to report to the Judges of the Civil Bill Courts upon all matters which may assist such Judges in determining the fair rent and specified value of a holding. There shall he paid to such valuers such remuneration as the Lord Lieutenant may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine,"—(The Earl of Erne.)
EARL SPENCERsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Earl that it would be better to place this power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant.
EARL CADOGANsaid, the Amendment was out of place; the point would arise on Clause 29.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 4 (Substitution of a written notice for the execution of an ejectment).
On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl Cadogan) the following Amendments made:—
In page 2, line 37, at the beginning of the clause insert ("in the case of any holding for which a judgment in ejectment for non-payment of rent has been recovered"); and in page 3, line 4, leave out from (" upon ") to the end of the line, and insert ("every person served with the writ or process in such ejectment").
Amendment moved,
In line 12, after ("caretaker") insert ("When a person is deemed to have been put into possession of land as a caretaker under this section, he may he removed from possession at any time in the manner provided by law for the recovery of possession of premises occupied by a caretaker; or, at the expiration of the period of redemption, but not sooner, the possession of such land may be recovered by a writ of possession in the prescribed form under the said judgment in ejectment for non-payment of rent save as aforesaid."—(The Lord Privy Seal, Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he trusted their Lordships would have an opportunity of considering that very important clause when the Bill was recommitted.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Power of surrender by middleman).
EARL CADOGAN, in Sub-section 8, providing that the person to whom a surrender is proposed to be made shall not be bound thereby unless written notice of the intention to surrender be served within three months after the passing of this Act, or within three months after the making of the reduction of rent upon which the right to surrender is founded, proposed, as an Amendment, that "six months" be substituted for "three months" in both cases.
Amendment moved, in page 4, lines 42 and 43, leave out ("three") and insert ("six.")—(The Lord Privy Seal, Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNproposed an Amendment, providing that where a person claimed to surrender his holding, part of which is sub-let, the Court shall determine the fair rent of the part not sub-let as if it constituted a holding, and the person surrendering were the tenant and the person to whom the surrender is proposed to be made were the landlord of the holding, and such person so claiming shall be deemed to be a tenant of a present tenancy, and such holding shall be subject to all the provisions of the said Act of 1881 with regard to present tenancies, provided that such person has not sub-let any portion of his holding without the consent of his landlord.
Amendment moved,
In page 4, leave out from ("sublet") in line 6 down to the second ("he") in line 8; page 5, Sub-section (9.), line 15, alter ("holding") add ("and such person so claiming shall be deemed to be a tenant of a present tenancy, and such holding shall be subject to all the provisions of the said Act of 1881, with regard to present tenancies, provided that such person has not sublet any portion of his holding without the consent of his landlord.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he felt bound to oppose the Amendment, on the ground that it was neither fair nor reasonable.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
LORD CLONCURRY,in moving to add the following sub-section to the clause:—
"The tenant of any holding held under a contract of tenancy made since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, and made subject to Section 12 or Section 15 of that Act, may surrender his estate in the holding, subject to the provisions of this section,"
said, that the provision would only apply to a small number of tenants, and enable them to give back the land to the owner when they found that they could not make any profitable use of it. He thought it was a subject worthy the consideration of the Government whether, by extending this clause to the class of tenants to which he referred,
34
they would not conduce to the peace and order of the country.
Amendment moved,
In page 5, line 15, after("holding") insert—"(10.) The tenant of any holding held under a contract of tenancy, made since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, and made subject to section twelve or section fifteen of that Act, may surrender his estate in the holding, subject to the provisions of this section."—(The Lord Cloncurry.)
EARL CADOGANsaid, he was very unwilling to decline any Amendment proposed by his noble Friend, but he could not accept the proposal which had been made with respect to this particular clause. If his noble Friend brought up a separate clause on the Report stage the Government would consider it; but at present, he regretted to say, they must oppose the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
On the Motion of The Lord FITZGERALD, the following Amendment made:—To add the following section at the end of clause:—
"Where any estate in land is surrendered under this section all sub-tenants of the person surrendering such estate shall thereupon become tenants to the person to whom such surrender is made at the rents and subject to the conditions of their sub-tenancies under the person so surrendering."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment moved, to insert the following new clauses in page 5, after Clause 5:—
"(6.) During the continuance of a statutory term in a tenancy, application by the landlord to authorize the resumption of a holding, or any part thereof, by him for some purpose having relation to the good of the holding or of the estate shall be entertained by the court, the modification in Section 8, Sub-section 3, of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, notwithstanding.
"(7.) Where the rent of any holding has been or may be increased, in respect of capital laid out by the landlord under agreement with the tenant, as provided by Section 5 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, the rent fixed by such agreement shall be deemed a fair rent during the term specified in such agreement, and until the expiry of such term no application for the alteration of such rent shall be entertained by the court."—(The Duke of Argyll.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he would admit that the question raised by the Amendment was one of considerable importance; but he would suggest that,

35
pending the careful consideration of it by the Lord Privy Seal and himself, it might not be pressed in the meantime.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he supported the Amendment in the interest of the labourers, for whom it was difficult to procure gardens and allotments near villages as the law stood at present.
LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he trusted the Government would favourably consider the Amendment, which he likewise regarded as affording the most important means of providing accommodation for the labourers.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that, while unwilling to press the Amendment in face of the opposition of the noble and learned Lord opposite, he hoped the Government would further consider the point. It was not in the interest of the landlords alone, but in the interest of all parties, that around all towns and cities in Ireland, as elsewhere, there should be ground available for building extensions.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Amendment moved,
After Clause 5, to insert as a new clause—"The provisions of the twenty-first section of the Act of 1881 with regard to leases, the acceptance of which by tenants was procured by threat of eviction or undue influence, shall apply to all grants in perpetuity executed since the first day of January, 1869, the execution of which has been so procured, provided that application to the Court be made within six months after the passing of this Act."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he hoped that the noble Earl would withdraw this clause. He (Lord Ashbourne) thought that, under all the circumstances, it would be desirable not to complicate the Bill by the insertion of such a clause.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 6 (Town parks).
LORD INCHIQUIN, in moving an Amendment by which any parcel of land let as accommodation land, and not as a farm, contiguous to any village or town, should be deemed to constitute a town park, and not a present tenancy, said, that his object was similar to that which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) had in view in a former Amendment, except that it did not pro-
36
vide for town buildings' extensions, but almost exclusively for allotments. The Amendment was simply to enable the landlords to let any land as accommodation land when it was contiguous to buildings, villages, and towns.
Amendment moved,
In page 5, line 20, after ("1881") insert ("and any parcel of land which has been or may hereafter be let as accommodation land, and not as a farm, contiguous to any village or town, shall be deemed to constitute a 'town park' and shall not be deemed to be a 'present tenancy' within the meaning of the said Act.") (The Lord Inchiquin.)
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he thought that if town parks were to be abolished, it should be directly, and not by a side wind. The clause in the Bill did not alter the law with regard to town parks, but merely defined what the law was. He preferred the Amendment of which he had given Notice, and which he was proceeding to read, when——
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: We are now considering the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Inchiquin).
LORD MACNAGHTENopposed the Amendment.
LORD ASHBOURNE,in opposing the Amendment on behalf of the Government, said, although it was only intended as an addition to the clause, it seemed to contradict the clause itself, and to offer an absolutely new definition of the purpose of accommodation land. It was also an absolutely new departure in the law of Ireland. The Government could not advise the Committee to accept it.
On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 16; Not-Contents 76: Majority 60.
Amendment disagreed to.
Amendment moved, to leave out Clause 6, and insert following clause—
"A parcel of land shall not be deemed to constitute a town park unless it is or has been used substantially as accommodation land, and is in other respects within the definition of the expression 'town park' in the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881: Provided always, that no parcel of land shall lose, or be deemed to have lost, its character of a town park by reason only that the person in occupation of the same shall have ceased after he became tenant thereof to live in such city or town, or the suburbs thereof, as in the said definition mentioned, or by reason of the holding becoming vested by succession, assignment, bequest, or act and operation of law in some person not residing in such city or town, or the suburbs thereof."—(The Earl of Belmore.)
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that the difficulty sought to be cured was that caused by the words "let to be used" in the clause as it now stood in the Bill. Similar words had been used with respect to grazing farms in the Land Act of 1870; and the Courts had held that the only way to prove such letting was by the production of an agreement in writing, which, in the case of town parks, could hardly ever be done. As regarded the latter part of the Amendment, it had been recently reluctantly decided to be the law, by the Head Commissioners, on appeal, at Omagh, that a person who had resided in a town, when he originally took a town park, could, by simply going to reside in the country, take the town park with him out of the definition as given in the Land Act of 1881, in breach of the intention of that Act. The Amendment he proposed was to meet that state of things.
EARL CADOGANsaid, he could not agree to accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, but he agreed that it was a very serious subject, and the Government would be quite willing to amend their own clause in order to meet the views of the noble Earl, and he would bring up a new clause for that purpose on Report.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid, he was glad that the Government were going to consider the matter, because the subject of town parks was of the greatest importance in Ireland.
THE EARL OF BELMOREaccepted the noble Earl's (Earl Cadogan's) offer.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Purchase of Land.
Clause 7 (Investment of guarantee deposit).
LORD CASTLETOWNproposed an Amendment to give power to invest, in addition to the securities mentioned in the Bill, in any debentures or debenture stock issued under the Local Loans Act, 1875. or in any Corporation or township stock, of any Municipal Corporation or township in Great Britain or Ireland issued under the authority of any Act of Parliament. That would give wider
38
powers to the trustees as to the investment of trust moneys.
Amendment moved,
In page 5, line 29, after ("moneys") insert ("or in any debentures or debenture stock issued under the Local Loans Act, 1875, or in any corporation or township stock of any Municipal Corporation or township in Great Britain or Ireland issued under the authority of any Act of Parliament.")—(The Lord Castletown.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he had no objection provided it was reasonably safe. He did not know whether the noble Lord had taken advice on the subject; but he should be glad if he would communicate with him between now and the Report.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
LORD CASTLETOWN LORD CASTLETOWN moved, as an Amendment, after Clause 7 to insert the following:—
"The Land Commission may make an advance to a tenant who is purchasing his holding of the whole principal sum or price payable by the tenant, without requiring the repayment of the advance to be secured by a guarantee deposit, if the Land Commission are satisfied that the security is reasonably sufficient without such deposit."
He thought it was a perfectly legitimate demand to ask the Government to advance the whole of the purchase-money on the terms provided in the proposed clause, as the owner or occupier might have all his capital invested in the holding, and might be unable to deposit the one-fifth of the price required by the Act of 1885. He had great pleasure in bearing high testimony to the regular and honourable manner in which loans were paid in instalments by Irish borrowers, and would refer to Mr. Henry Fowler, late Secretary to the Treasury, who had declared that he was perfectly astonished at the regularity with which the loans and interest had been paid, and which would compare favourably with the way in which loans were paid in any other portion of the Empire. What he (Lord Castletown) proposed was that they should assent to the whole loans where there was ample security.
Amendment moved,
In page 5, after Clause 7, insert following clause;—"The Land Commission may make an advance to a tenant who is purchasing his holding of the whole principal sum or price

39
payable by the tenant, without requiring the repayment of the advance to be secured by a guarantee deposit, if the Land Commission are satisfied that the security is reasonably sufficient without such deposit."—(The Lord Castletown.)
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, it had been pointed out to him that the fact of a deposit of one-fifth being required in all cases interfered with the sale of mortgaged estates, because the mortgagees generally wanted their money down. He supported the Amendment.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he was afraid it was quite impossible to accept the Amendment. In the Act of 1885 various attempts had been made to deal with this very question, and great difficulty was felt as to how the whole of the purchase-money could be advanced in safety. It was thought one-fifth was required as security. No such arrangement as that proposed in the Amendment could be made without the serious examination of it by the Treasury.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 8 (Trust funds may be applied as a guarantee deposit) agreed to.
Clause 9 (Duty of Land Commission with respect to enforcement of arrears) agreed to, with Amendments.
Clause 10 (Expediting proceedings on Bales) agreed to, with Amendments.
Clause 11 (Crown rents, quit rents, and tithe rent charge).
LORD MONTEAGLE,in moving as an Amendment to insert after "quitrent" the words "head rent," said, that difficulties had arisen in dealing with the owners of head rents in many instances, and he had known cases where the sale of land had been stopped through the owner of the head rent refusing to sell on any terms whatever, while, in other cases, a practically prohibitive price had been demanded, which came to the same thing. That was a serious matter, deserving the attention of the House and the Government; and he thought that something ought to be done to carry further the principle they had adopted in regard to that question.
Amendment moved, in page 7, line 16, after ("quit rent ") insert (" head rent.")—(The Lord Monteagle.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that that question had been very fully considered
40
and discussed in connection with the Land Purchase Act of 1885, and many representations were made on the subject. The people who were not owners of head rents were willing that they should be sub-divided; but those who owned head rents objected to it very much, urging that it would enormously diminish the value of their property, if, for example, a head rent of £100 or £200, payable at present by one person, were made payable by a large number of persons, which would necessitate the employment of an agent for the purpose. It was, therefore, said that it would be unjust to fritter away in that manner the property of the owners of head rents who were in the possession of a secure income without any trouble to themselves. Under all the circumstances, although he quite recognized and sympathized with the object in view, he feared it was not practicable to deal with the matter in the way now suggested.
THE EARL OF BELMOREhad come to the conclusion, having given a good deal of attention to the matter, that it would be necessary to introduce compulsory sale of head rents on fair terms.
EARL SPENCERsaid, he feared that as long as those head rents existed it would be almost impossible to get a satisfactory system of purchase of land by the occupier, and if the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne) could remove that particular difficulty, much would be done to facilitate the working of such a system in Ireland.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl Cadogan) the following Amendments made:—In lines 16, 18, and 24, after ("rent charge") insert ("Land Improvement Charge"),
LORD CASTLETOWNproposed an Amendment for the purpose of providing that when any holding sold to a tenant under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts was subject with other lands to any Crown rent, quit rent, tithe rent charge, drainage charge, "terminable annuity or rent charge," the Land Commission may apportion such rent or charge between the holding and the other land in such manner as seemed to them equitable.
Amendment moved,
In page 7, line 16, leave out ("or") and in same line after ("drainage charge") insert ("terminable annuity or rent charge")—The Lord Castletown.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, because it would interfere with private rights. He would, however, consider the matter, and communicate with his noble Friend before the Report stage.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl Cadogan) the following Amendment made:—In line 26, at end of line, add as a new sub-section—
"(3.) No such apportionment or redemption of Crown rent shall be made without the previous consent of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and no such apportionment or redemption of tithe rentcharge payable to the Land Commission, or of Land Improvement Charge or of drainage charge payable to the Commissioners of Public Works, shall be made without the previous consent of the Commissioners of the Treasury.
"For the purpose of this section, the Commissioners of the Treasury may from time to time make rules for regulating the mode of giving consents, and the terms upon which consents shall be given."
Amendment moved, to add at end of Clause the following sub-section:—
"The Land Commission may, if they think it expedient, order the redemption of any head rent, or any apportioned part thereof, at a price to be fixed by arbitration in the manner provided by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts."
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he would consider the question, with the object of seeing what could be done at a later stage, and must, therefore, ask the noble Lord not to press the Amendment on that occasion.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he would not press his Amendment at that stage.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 (Limit on the amount of advance by the Land Commission); and Clause 13 (Charging order for securing repayment of an advance), separately agreed to.
Clause 14 (Priority of charge for advance) struck out of the Bill.
Clause 15 (Writ of possession) agreed to.
Clause 16 (Specific performance).
On the Motion of The Lord CASTLETOWN, the following Amendment made:—In page 8, line 22, after ("when") insert ("either before or after the passing of this Act"), and in same line leave out ("is") and insert ("has been").
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNproposed to add to the clause words providing that when the Land Commission refuse to sanction a sale agreed upon by the landlord and tenant, they shall, upon the application of either landlord or tenant, state the grounds upon which such refusal is based. He held that this was only reasonable and just, and that it was perfectly monstrous that two gentlemen should be allowed to upset the working of the Land Purchase Act without giving any reason whatever.
Amendment moved,
In page 8, line 32, after ("Commission") add—("When the Land Commission refuse to sanction such sale as aforesaid, they shall, upon the application of either landlord or tenant, state the grounds upon which such refusal is based.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
LORD MONTEAGLE,in moving to insert after Clause 16 a clause providing that upon the completion of any sale under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, or the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1385, the title to each holding, as well as deeds, mortgages, and other charges affecting it, should be recorded in the office of the Land Commission, and not in the Registry of Deeds, and that the Land Commission should make rules and prescribe forms for the purpose of carrying this provision into effect, contended that it was in the interest both of those who were to be the purchasers and of the vendor that the security should be as good as possible. In his opinion, this was a singularly favourable opportunity for providing machinery for the registering of land which was purchased.
Amendment moved, after Clause 16, page 8, insert the following Clause:—

43
"(1.) Upon the completion of any sale under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, or the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, the title to each holding shall be recorded in the office of the Land Commission, in such manner and form as the Land Commission shall prescribe.
"(2.) The vesting order or conveyance transferring such holding shall not be registered in the Registry of Deeds, but in lieu thereof a memorandum stating that each vesting order or conveyance has been made and recorded, shall be lodged by the Land Commission in the Registry of Deeds, and shall be registered therein.
"(3.) From and after the recording of any such title to a holding as aforesaid, the operation of the statutes relating to the Registry of Deeds in Ireland shall, as from the date of such recording and with respect to any subsequent dealings with such holding by way of transfer or charge or otherwise howsoever, cease to be applicable thereto.
"(4.) All transfers and mortgages of any holding so recorded, and all charges, incumbrances, bonds, writings, deeds, and things whatsoever which may commence to affect such holdings after the recording of the title thereto, shall be recorded in the office of the Land Commission, and shall not be registered either in the Registry of Deeds or in the Registry of Judgments.
"(5.) All such transfers, mortgages, charges, incumbrances, bonds, writings, deeds, and things, shall, as between themselves, take priority according to the date at which they are recorded.
"(6.) The Land Commission shall make rules and prescribe forms for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this section."—(The Lord Monteagle.)
LORD CASTLETOWNsaid, he hoped that the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne) would make such arrangements with the Land Commissioners as would enable them to register the transfer of holdings, so that in future any holding could be easily traced.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that this was a matter which required close and nice consideration, on account of the question of priorities which was introduced by the section. He could not interfere with the arrangements of the Land Commissioners; but he would consider the question and would apply to those upon whom it was sought to cast the administration of this matter. the proposed clause, he thought, was not workable.
LORD THRINGsaid, he thought that it was desirable, in the interest of both tenant and landlord, that there should be a system of registry of title. He could not see that there was the slightest difficulty in the way.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he did not know how it could be given effect to;
44
but the object which the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) sought to obtain by this Amendment was one of the utmost importance. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Ashbourne) had said that he would obtain the opinion of the Land Commission upon it; and he (Lord Herschell) would admit that it was necessary that the noble and learned Lord opposite should consult with those whose business it was to administer the Act; but, as that body might naturally see with an exaggerating eye the difficulties that might arise, he hoped at the same time that the noble and learned Lord would exercise his own independent judgment in the matter.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that a system of registration must be compulsory to be of any effect, and he thought that this was a good opportunity for establishing it.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Appeals.
Clause 17 (Provision for hearing of appeals under the Land Act).
EARL SPENCERsaid, that it might be convenient if he made some general remarks upon the clause before they came to the Amendments which were upon the Paper. The Government were strengthening the Appeal Courts of the Land Commission, with the view, presumably, of meeting the amount of work that would come before it if this Bill became law. At the present moment he understood that the arrears pending before the Commission numbered only 3,000, and he expected that the Commission would shortly reduce them. He further understood that a certain arrangement with regard to three months' notice would still further clear the list of a great many cases. He would like to hear the views of the Government with regard to this matter. He thought that the clause as it stood left a great deal too much to the discretion of the Irish Government. It practically left it to the Lord Lieutenant to constitute two Courts for the purpose of hearing appeals. If he was not mistaken, he believed that under the Act of 1881 it was necessary that the Courts of Appeal should consist of three persons, and he imagined that it was the intention of the Government now that the Courts should be so constituted. In his opinion the

45
Lord Lieutenant had too muck power thrown upon him. Judges of the High Court could be introduced for the purpose of carrying out the Act; and if the Lord Lieutenant were given the powers which it was proposed to confer upon him, he might even make one of them preside over the Court. He did not sup-pose, however, that that was the intention of the Government. The Court had originally consisted of Mr. Justice O'Hagan, Mr. Vernon—whose death they all deplored, and who had done such admirable service—and Mr. Litton. Mr. Litton had now been engaged for many years as one of the Chief Commissioners, and it would be unfair that he should be liable to be superseded in the Presidency of the second Court. With his great experience and legal knowledge it would be far bettor that he should preside in a second Court of Appeal than that oven a Judge of the High Court should do so. Then the clause provided that the Lord Lieutenant might nominate a County Court Judge to be a member of the Court to hear appeals. There were County Court Judges and County Court Judges, and it would be well if the names of the County Court Judges eligible to be so nominated were put into the Bill. He reserved his right to move Amendments to this clause on the Report.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that one of the complaints about the administration of the Land Act of 1881 had been the delay in the hearing of appeals, which was often as long as three years. There were now as many as 3,000 or 4,000 appeals waiting to be heard, and, therefore, it was deemed advisable to take powers in this Bill for constituting, if necessary, a second Court of Appeal to expedite their hearing. Mr. Justice O'Hagan would naturally preside in one Court, and the Judge of the High Court, who would be called upon to assist, would naturally preside over the second, and would, of course, take precedence of Mr. Litton. With regard to the County Court Judges, he could not agree that it would be well to name them in the Bill. The Bill was constructed, not on the basis of creating new officers at great expense, or to provide a new and continuous Appellate Division, but to give power to the Executive, from time to time, to make the appointments when the necessity arose
46
for them. He thought the clause was one that was likely to work fairly and satisfactorily.
LORD HERSCHELLasked, whether a County Court Judge called in to assist would take precedence of Mr. Commissioner Litton?
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he had not considered that delicate point; but he felt inclined to think that Mr. Litton would have precedence over a County Court Judge.
THE EARL OF ERNEproposed, as an Amendment, that the additional members of the Land Commission to be appointed should be laymen, and not lawyers. There was, he thought, an undue proportion of lawyers upon it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYstated that they did not propose that the County Court Judges selected to administer the Act should be County Court Judges and Land Commissioners too. Somebody else would be appointed for the time to do their County Court work.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he would point out that the constitution of the Land Commission would have to be considered in August, 1888; and if they did not appoint officials who had already posts which gave them permanence of tenure, they must supply their places by men who would only be employed for a few months. That was not desirable. Her Majesty's Government-did not suggest that they would have permanent work; but they might be occasionally required to assist in the Commission to keep down arrears.
EARL CADOGANsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. The Land Commission would by effluxion of time come to an end next year, and it would then have to be reconstituted. It would not be well to anticipate that now.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ERNE THE EARL OF ERNE moved an Amendment, with the object of excluding County Court Judges from service upon the divisions of the Land Commission to be hereafter constituted. He did not for a moment doubt the capacity of the County Court Judges to fulfil the duties which the clause would impose upon them, but he thought that they were already sufficiently burdened with work.
VISCOUNT DE VESCIsupported the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpointed out that the County Court Judges who were appointed Land Commissioners would not have to discharge their ordinary duties, some other official being appointed to do the work. Consequently, the argument that they would be over-burdened fell to the ground.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that the tribunal must be composed somehow. The precedent followed by the Government in this case was drawn from a Bill drafted three years ago, when Sir George Trevelyan was Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was not thought desirable to fill the tribunal with officials who did not hold permanent appointments. The Land Commission must be reconstituted before August, 1888, and during the interval it would be well to take advantage of the services of men of experience, whose tenure of office was durable. If the County Court Judges were excluded from the appellate tribunal, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find other permanent officials squally well fitted to discharge the functions of that Court. Besides, they would only serve in case their assistance was needed to keep down appeals.
EARL SPENCERsaid, he still maintained that it would be much better to specify accurately the constitution of the Court in the Bill than to leave it for settlement by the Lord Lieutenant. He hoped that the noble and learned Lord would consent to name the County Court Judges who would be appointed. He also thought that power should be given to the Lord Chancellor to direct any Judge appointed after the passing of the Act to sit, if necessary, in this Court of Appeal on land cases.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 18 (Remuneration of County Court Judge).
Clause 19 (Procedure on appeals).
LORD CASTLETOWN (for Lord SUDELEY), in moving to insert words providing that the independent valuer shall, in all cases, report to the Commissioners his opinion as to the amount of the judicial rent of the holding, and the basis on which he has arrived at such opinion; and shall accompany his Report with an Ordnance map of the holding, and a statement of such facts
48
and circumstances as may be required for the purpose of enabling the Land Commission to form a judgment as to the subject-matter of such Report; and, further, that the appointment of valuers shall be vested in the Lord Lieutenant, such valuers to be sworn in the same manner as Judges of the High Court of Justice are sworn, said, he believed that would be a very useful provision, and that it would result in producing a valuable history of the holding.
Amendment moved,
To add at the end of clause—"Such valuer shall in all cases report to the Commissioners his opinion as to the amount of the judicial rent of the holding, and the basis on which he has arrived at such opinion; and shall accompany his report with an ordnance map of the holding and a statement of such facts and circumstances as may be required for the purpose of enabling the Land Commission to form a judgment as to the subject-matter of such report. Every such report shall be filed, and may be inspected by the parties, a reasonable time before the sitting of the Land Commission, or the Division thereof which is to hear the appeal, or re-hear the case to which such report refers; and any party shall he entitled to an office or certified copy thereof on payment of such reasonable charge as shall be prescribed.
"The power of appointing valuers under the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, and this Act, is hereby vested in the Lord Lieutenant, who shall, on the requisition of the Land Commission, exercise the same; and every commissioner, sub-commissioner, and valuer appointed after the passing of this Act, shall be sworn in the same manner as judges in the High Court of Justice are now by law required to be sworn."—(The Lord Castletown.)
EARL CADOGANsaid, he was under the impression that the object desired could be attained by rules; but he should accept the Amendment with certain alterations as to phraseology, which he should be prepared to state on Report.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remission of Local Rates.
Clause 20 (Remission of local rates).
On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl Cadogan) the following Amendment made:—
"(4.) Where any poor rate is remitted under this section in respect of land let at a rent, the third section of the Act of the Session of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter 92, shall apply."
On the Motion of The Lord MONTEAGLE, the following Amendment made:—

49
("5.) No poor-rate collector or barony con-stable shall be required to pay under his warrant any rate or cess which has been remitted by an order under this section."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that at that point (11.30) he must appeal to the noble Marquess at the head of the Government to allow the further consideration of the clauses of the Bill in Committee to be now adjourned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not propose that they should have an All-night Sitting on their Bill; but he would now consent to report Progress, and desired to proceed again with the discussion in Committee tomorrow. With regard to an adjournment for the further consideration of the Bill, as had been hinted at in some quarters, over the Whitsun holidays, he did not think that, if such an adjournment took place, it would make much difference. This Bill depended upon the measure in the other House, and at present the sister Bill was not making much progress. They did not propose to send this Bill to the other House until the other measure was safe from its dangers there. There was no absolute pressure for their speed.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he hoped the noble Marquess would see his way to go on with the Bill after the holidays. The amended clauses were of vital importance, and their Lordships had no time to consider Amendments. They could not possibly do it before the holidays.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he had a very important Amendment to propose on Clause 21, the object of which was to render the Bankruptcy Clauses wholly unnecessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that if their Lordships did not take the Bill up to-morrow its consideration must be put off until after Whitsuntide. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland had business to transact in Ireland, and Friday was the only other day conveniently at their disposal. On the whole, therefore, he thought it would be better to go on, and the Bill would be put down for to-morrow (Tuesday), when, if their Lordships should still be of opinion that there had not been sufficient opportunity for considering the important Clauses 21, 22, and 23, which followed the point at which they had
50
adjourned, the Government would consent either to adjourn the further progress of the Bill until after Whitsun, or would have the measure re-committed in regard to those particular clauses.
House resumed; House to be again in Committee To-morrow.

JUBILEE SERVICE IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY.
Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of arranging the distribution of tickets of admission to be given to Peers on the occasion of the Jubilee Thanksgiving Service to he held in Westminster Abbey on 21st June."—(The Lord Chamberlain.)
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.