Sitting of 13 September 1887

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Glebe Lands* [391].
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Appellate Jurisdiction* [234]; Coroners * [378]; Local Authorities (Expenses) * [361], and passed.
Third Reading—Pluralities Act Amendment * [303]; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation), and passed.
Withdrawn—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Amendment * [325].

QUESTIONS.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— TEACHERS OF MODEL SCHOOLS.
  MR. LEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the teachers of the model schools in Ireland are appointed and dismissed by the Commissioners of National Education; whether the appointments of these teachers are made after competitive examinations; and whether they are thus virtually civil servants; whether it has been the custom hitherto not to dismiss these teachers, unless when they have committed some breach of rule, or have become unfit for service; whether the Commissioners have dismissed five of the female teachers of the Bailieborough Model School, in County Cavan, after giving them three months' notice; whether these teachers have been guilty of any dereliction of duty, or have they been
  464
  dismissed, after 30 years' service in the case of two of them, because the attendance of pupils at the school has been diminished, through circumstances over which they could not have had any control; and, will the Government grant these teachers compensation for this summary dismissal?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have to reply to the first parapraph in the affirmative. Since 1872 appointments of these teachers have been made after competitive examination; but no national teacher is recognized either actually or virtually, as a civil servant. They do not come under the Superannuation Act, nor are they examined by the Civil Service Commissioners. It has been the custom not to dismiss teachers unless for some breach of rule, or through becoming unfit for service; because, hitherto, when a teacher's services became unnecessary in a particular model school owing to the diminution in the attendance of pupils the Commissioners were able to provide for such teachers by transferring them to other model schools. As regarded Bailieborough Model School, it appears that the attendance had fallen off to such an extent as barely to warrant the recognition of two departments and two teachers. The Commissioners have, therefore, been constrained by their Rules to give notice to the teachers whose services are no longer required. They have been informed, however, that should vacancies occur in other model schools the Commissioners will be glad to consider their claims for re-employment. The services of these teachers are to be dispensed with solely because of the great diminution of the attendance. One of them has had nearly 30 years' service distributed over four or five different schools. The Government cannot undertake to adopt the suggestion contained in the last paragraph of the Question.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—THE RED RIVER RAILWAY IN MANITOBA.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, What is the latest information he has received in regard to the construction of the Red River Railway in Manitoba, and the action of the

  465
  Dominion Government in relation thereto?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND) (): I have received a confidential despatch from the Marquess of Lansdowne, which recapitulates more fully the facts stated in the telegram which I read to the House on the 29th of August. The case on either side was debated with great ability in the Dominion House of Commons, and will be found in Vol. 19 of the Canadian Hansard. I gather that the Provincial Government has, in spite of the disallowance of the Act, commenced the construction of the line, and that the grading of the road is now in progress. Injunctions have been applied for by several parties to prevent the passage of the new line through lands belonging to them. It will be seen that the matters are sub judice, and it would, therefore, not be proper for me, even if I could do so, to offer an opinion on the case. It is hoped that all parties will abide by the final decision of the Court.

  WAR OFFICE—THE ROYAL HOSPITAL, CHELSEA—MALE NURSES.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case in Naval Hospitals that Army pensioners are employed as male nurses, and whether there is any objection to the employment at the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, of pensioners of the Royal Marines or the Royal Navy when fitted for that employment; and, whether, as would appear from a letter of the Lieutenant Governor of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, dated 6th September, 1887, it is absolutely the rule that Naval or Royal Marine pensioners are not eligible for employment in that Hospital?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE) (): Chelsea Hospital differs altogether in character from the Naval Hospitals. The latter are merely for the treatment of the sick; whereas Chelsea is a home for aged soldiers. The Rule is that employment in it shall be limited to Army pensioners, whose numbers are very large. I do not think the Rule could be altered without great inconvenience.

  BOARD OF TRADE (MARINE DEPARTMENT)— SHIPWRECKS AND LOSS OF LIFE IN THE BRISTOL CHANNEL— STEAM TUG OFF THE MUMBLES HEAD.
  MR. MACLUREasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, seeing that 50 vessels and 300 lives were lost in the Bristol Channel during the storms of last autumn and winter, and that a Swansea firm has offered to supply the necessary coal gratis, the Admiralty are now prepared to undertake, before stormy weather again sets in, to station a powerful steam tug off the Mumbles Head, with the view of affording help to vessels in distress during the winter season, provided the wages of the seamen were guaranteed by the Local Authorities?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar Question addressed by him on Friday last to the First Lord of the Admiralty, who stated that the Admiralty have no vessel at their disposal for the purpose. As regards the Board of Trade, I would further refer the hon. Member to a reply which I gave to a Question asked by him on the 22nd of February, and to the statement which I then made, to the effect that there are plenty of steam tugs in the district the masters of which do not, as a rule, refuse to render salvage service when practicable.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES—OUTRAGES ON BRITISH FISHING VESSELS BY BELGIAN TRAWLERS—THE "TRIO."
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, What steps have been taken in regard to the case of the Trio, of Lowestoft, whose nets were destoyed on the 8th instant by the Ostend Trawler 0. 199; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will see that justice is done, both by the punishment of the offenders, who appear to have rejoiced in the mischief which they wilfully perpetrated, and also in taking care that adequate pecuniary compensation is afforded to the outraged parties?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) ():

  467
  The Board of Trade have received the depositions of the master and crew of the Trio, and the facts therein mentioned do not, in all their details, agree with the statements contained in the hon. Member's Question. The hon. Member can see the Papers at the Board of Trade, if ha would like to do so. The Board of Trade will request the Foreign Office to call the attention of the Belgian Government to the case, and they have no reason to anticipate that justice will not be done. I have only seen the newspaper account of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES—THE PROTECTING CRUISER.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked, the First Lord of the Admiralty, At what rate of speed the cruiser of Her Majesty's Fleet, stationed off Lowestoft for the protection of the fishing, is capable of steaming; and, whether the vessel in question is considered to be well adapted for that particular service?
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (A LORD of the ADMIRALTY) () (who replied) said: The cruiser stationed off Lowestoft, the Hearty, is of 1,300 tons displacement, and 1,800 horse-power. She is capable of steaming 14 knots, and is very well adapted for the particular service in which she has been engaged. She has been also particularly fitted for it.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: What steamer is stationed at Folkestone?
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I cannot say at the moment.

  BOARD OF TRADE RETURNS—FOREIGN MANUFACTURED GOODS WITH BRITISH TRADE MARKS.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB&c.)asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether any record is kept of the quantities and values of foreign manufactured goods imported into the United Kingdom for home consumption or trans-shipment, and which, though manufactured abroad, bear the names or trade marks of British manufacturing establishments at home; if so, whether this information will in future be included in the Board of Trade Returns; and, if not, whether the collection of such information will be
  468
  provided for with a view to publication?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) (): The goods referred to by the hon. and gallant Member are prohibited to be imported, and there, consequently, can be no record of their importation.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE—ALLEGED "BLACKMAILING."
  GENERAL FRASERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What has been the result of the inquiry into the allegations made regarding "blackmailing" by the Metropolitan Police; and, whether there is the slightest foundation for the allegations?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (): Inquiries have been made, and are still proceeding, into these allegations. I am informed by the Commissioners of Police that they have failed to obtain as yet any information or any evidence to show whether there is any foundation for the allegations referred to.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT—THE TARBERT DIVISION.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Captain Leslie, of Tarbert, succeeded in preventing the promotion of several schemes for the erection of labourers' cottages, under the Labourers (Ireland) Act, in the Tarbert Division, by his undertaking to erect whatever cottages might be required; whether it is a fact that no cottage has ever since been built; whether the Guardian for the said Division, who was responsible for accepting the said compromise, is a paid servant of Captain Leslie, and holds the position of Guardian through the proxy votes given by Captain Leslie and his friends; whether the labourers in the said Division are, as a consequence, compelled to inhabit huts condemned by the Sanitary Authorities in March, 1882; and, whether any steps will be taken by the Executive Government in Ireland to remedy the present state of affairs in the Division referred to?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (),in reply,

  469
  said, that as the Question had been put down on the Paper without Notice, and as it would require local inquiries to be made, he could not answer it.
  DR. TANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I handed in the Question on Friday last?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not aware of the fact.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask when it will be answered?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, it will be answered as soon as the information arrives from Ireland.
  DR. TANNER: To-morrow?
  [No reply.]

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)— RURAL TELEGRAPH EXTENSION— GUARANTEES.
  MAJOR BANES () (for Mr. ROUND) ()asked the Postmaster General, Whether the guarantee now demanded in the case of rural telegraph extensions is required to cover any further expenses than those stated by the Prime Minister on 4th August; and, whether, in view of the hopes held out by the late Mr. Fawcett in 1881, in answer to a Question in this House, he will consider whether more favourable terms cannot be granted to such guarantors than those which at present exist?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that I am not aware of any addition that I can make to the explanation which was given by the Prime Minister of the principle on which guarantees for telegraph extensions are now fixed. As to what was stated by Mr. Fawcett in 1881, I find that certain modifications were made in the following year; the principal one being that, whereas formerly guarantors had been required to deposit in advance the amount of the guarantee, they were in subsequent cases merely required to make good the deficiency at the end of each year. As regards the guarantee required in those cases where the office is found to be not self-supporting on the expiration of the first term of seven years, the amount of the sinking fund for the first cost is omitted.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT, 1885—THE WARRINGTON LIBRARY AND MUSEUM COMMITTEE.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, under the "Public Libraries Act, 1885," the Warrington Library and Museum Committee are justified in requiring and receiving subscriptions from persons borrowing books from the Warrington Free Library, which Library is supported from the rates; and, whether the Library Committee are legally justified in according privileges to subscribers in respect of the loan of books from the Free Library, which privileges are not accorded to ratepayers who do not pay special subscriptions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (): There is no authority under the Public Libraries Act of 1855 for making any distinction between persons who subscribe and persons who do not. In my opinion the Act does not contemplate the loan of books out of the Library; and I think it doubtful whether such loan is legal. Assuming, however, that under Section 21 Rules could be made permitting the loan of books, it would, in my opinion, be competent for the Committee to require a reasonable deposit to ensure their safe return.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— ARREST OF MR. W. O'BRIEN, M.P.
  MR. THEOBALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware of the fact that the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) when under arrest on a charge of having made inflammatory speeches, addressed a speech to the crowd assembled in front of the Imperial Hotel; whether such a thing is legal; and, if not, if he will give orders that a similar proceeding be not again allowed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (): The facts stated in the Question are true. The incident arose from a mistake of the officer in charge, who supposed that the hon. Member for East Cork would not abuse the liberty the officer allowed him. In my opinion, the proceeding was highly improper.
  DR. TANNER: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he considers an inflammatory speech? Was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman last night an inflammatory speech?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES—AFFRAY BETWEEN FRENCH AND ENGLISH FISHERMEN AT RAMSGATE—COMPENSATION.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether any, and, if so, what amount of compensation was paid by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the fray between French fishermen belonging to Gravelines, and some English fishermen, &c, at Rams-gate Harbour on 7th October last year?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) (): Her Majesty's Government paid to the French Ambassador in London, the sum of £42 13 s. 8d., as compensation to fishermen of Gravelines, for injuries sustained during the disturbances at Ramsgate on the 4th and 7th of October last.
  In reply to a further Question,
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid: The only other expenditure in connection with this matter was a small sum, as travelling and subsistence allowance to one of the Inspectors of Fisheries, who was directed to proceed to Ramsgate for the purpose of elucidating the circumstances.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES;—THE LATE RIOTS AT OSTEND—COMPENSATION FOR LOSS SUSTAINED BY ENGLISH FISHERMEN.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: I beg to ask my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will use their utmost endeavours to obtain compensation for the loss sustained by English fishermen in the late riots at Ostend, in the same manner as the French Government have obtained compensation from the English Government on account of the slight affray at Ramsgate in October last?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (): I am safe in saying that
  472
  Her Majesty's Government will do all they properly can to obtain compensation for British fishermen who suffered damage through the default of a Foreign Government. But I must remind my hon. Friend that where there are means of obtaining redress, it is not right for Her Majesty's Government to ask for compensation by direct diplomatic means. Her Majesty's Government have ascertained from the Belgian Government that a remedy does exist, and that an action should be brought for damages sustained, by an action against the Local Authorities at Ostend. That has been pointed out to the parties concerned; and I understand that one of them has taken proceedings against the Local Authorities. Should, there be any failure to obtain a remedy in due course by law, which I have no reason to doubt, Her Majesty's Government will do all in their power to obtain it.

  ARMY ESTIMATES—AN EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB&c.,)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in his Memorandum accompanying next year's Army Estimates, or in some other form, he will endeavour to furnish information as to the approximate total annual charges for the transport of troops, for the supply and conveyance of purely military stores, and for the maintenance of garrisons at each of our naval coal depôts abroad?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE) (): Before the next Army Estimates are prepared, I will see how far it may be practicable to give the information referred to in my hon. and gallant Friend's Question, either in a Memorandum attached to them, or in some other form.

  NAVY ESTIMATES—AN EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB&c.,)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in his Memorandum accompanying the next Naval Estimates, or in some other way, he will endeavour to give information corresponding to that on page 3 of the Memorandum which was furnished with this year's Army Estimates, so as to show approximately the estimated total annual cost, under all heads, of each of the

  473
  several branches of the personnel of the Naval Services, and of the administration, as distinguished from other charges?
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (A LORD of the ADMIRALTY) ()(who replied) said, it is intended to make a somewhat similar statement in next year's Naval Estimates to that which appeared in this year's Army Estimates.

  BOARD OF TRADE (RAILWAY DEPARTMENT)— SPECIAL CARRIAGES FOR LADIES.
  MR. ADDISONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, If any replies have been received by that Department, from the Railway Companies, with reference to the Circular recently addressed to them on the question of providing additional accommodation in railway trains for the exclusive use of females; and, if so, whether he will communicate to the House the nature of the replies?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) (): The Board of Trade have received promises of replies from a large number of Railway Companies; but the Papers are not yet in a condition to be laid before Parliament.

  INDIA—PURCHASE OF STORES— RESOLUTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
  SIR LEWIS PELLYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will place upon the Table of the House any Resolutions of the Government of India, with connected Correspondence between the Government of India and the subordinate Local Governments and between the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India, on the question of the purchase of stores and articles for the use of Government in England and in India respectively?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: If the hon. Member will move for the Resolution of the Government of India of the 10th of January, 1883, which contains the Rules now in force regarding the supply of articles of European manufacture re-
  474
  quired for the Public Services in India, the Secretary of State for India will be glad to let him have the Papers as an unopposed Return. As regards the Correspondence asked for, Viscount Cross does not think it necessary to give it, as it is long and somewhat controversial, and contains nothing which is not in the Resolution.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—ESCAPE OF PRISONERS FROM MARYBOROUGH GAOL.
  Mr. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that on the 16th of August last, at Maryborough Prison, three warders were sent out in charge of 16 prisoners to work at the now cottages; that, later in the day, the Governor sent one of the three warders and seven of the convicts away into the country to work, leaving the two remaining warders in charge of the nine convicts; whether it is true that four of these nine convicts—namely, Thomas Manning, undergoing 10 years' imprisonment, Morgan O'Brien, 10 years, Patrick Daly, seven years, James Murphy, seven years, belonged to the class of convicts who ought not to be allowed outside the gate of the prison without an armed guard; whether, about 5 o'clock on the same day, convict James Murphy ran away and escaped; whether, in consequence, Warder O'Brien was called on to resign his post, on pain of dismissal, and this without any sworn inquiry being made; whether in other convict prisons a Military guard is employed; and, whether, taking into consideration the number of convicts who have escaped from Maryborough Prison since 1879, and the number of warders who in consequence have been dismissed or reduced in rank and pay, the Government will institute a sworn inquiry into the circumstances of the escape of Murphy and the virtual dismissal of Warder O'Brien?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It is not possible to deal with the details involved in this Question for some days, as it will be necessary to communicate with, the Inspector who held the inquiry and with the Governor of the prison.

  475
  So far as the Question relates to Warder O'Brien, the decision of the Prison Board was arrived at on his own evidence, which showed that the escape of convict Murphy arose from culpable and admitted neglect on the part of Warder O'Brien. A statement of the whole case, with the minutes of evidence taken at the inquiry, was laid before the Government, and the Lord Lieutenant confirmed the action of the Prison Board.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— OUTRAGES IN CLARE COUNTY.
  MR. KIMBERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the perpetrators of the 10 several outrages in County Clare, reported in the Dublin Daily Express of 30th August, six being by fire-arms discharged into dwelling-houses, one an attempt to blow up a bridge by dynamite, one the savage beating of three labourers, one a notice threatening death, and one of "Boycotting," have been traced and brought to justice, and what are the facts of the cases as ascertained; and, whether Her Majesty's subjects travelling in those districts may expect to travel safely?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (): The outrages were correctly reported in The Daily Express. I am not aware how many persons have been made amenable—very few, I am afraid, in proportion to the number of outrages. I should imagine that those of Her Majesty's subjects who are in danger are the residents in the county, and not stray travellers through it.

  ENCOURAGEMENT OF HORSE BREEDING— APPROPRIATION OF £5,000.
  MR. STEPHENSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the proposed appropriation of £5,000 for the encouragement of horse breeding, Whether, as horse breeding is a complicated pursuit demanding for success much individual resource and thrift, he will adhere, as strictly as possible, to a policy of laissez faire, and decline to allow Government interference with the industry of horse breeding in England, or to subsidize it with public money?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (): In answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question, I can only repeat what has already been stated in this House. A sum of rather over £3,000 per annum has hitherto been given by Her Majesty out of her Civil List to Queen's Plates. The object of the gift was to encourage the breed of horses. Her Majesty has been pleased to signify her intention to give the bulk of this money in future not in plates to be raced for, but in prizes to be competed for at agricultural shows, this being regarded as a better means of promoting the avowed object—the encouragement of horse breeding; and the Government have undertaken to contribute out of the Estimates the comparatively small sum necessary to make up Her Majesty's gift to £5,000, which gives them a locus standi and a certain responsibility in constituting the Administering Board.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARIES ACT—BOUNDARIES OF UNIONS.
  MR. HOBHOUSEasked the President of the Local Government Board, If local inquiries will be held by the Assistant Commissioner under the new Local Government Boundaries Act in every case where the boundaries of Unions overlap those of counties; if proper notice will be given of such inquiries by advertisement in the local newspapers; and, if the public will have a right to be present and give evidence at such inquiries?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE) (): It will rest with the Commissioners appointed by the Act to determine as to the arrangements in connection with local inquiries as regards the overlapping of the county boundaries by Unions. The Commissioners will, no doubt, provide for local inquiries being held wherever they deem it necessary, and that notice should be given of the inquiries before they are held.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE LXL— ARMENIA.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, last year, Her Majesty's Government sent to Sir Edward Thornton at Constantinople various Memorials and Petitions setting forth the lamentable

  477
  state of affairs in Armenia, and praying that the promised reforms might be executed; and, whether Her Majesty's Ambassador made any representations to the Porte on the subject; and, if so, what was the nature of the official reply?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Two Memorials representing grievances were received by Her Majesty's Government, and were sent to Her Majesty's Ambassador in Constantinople in 1885. A further communication was made to him in 1886, and brought to the notice of the Porte. No formal reply was made; but he was informed that certain reforms were in contemplation and being gradually carried out.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND)—THE KILLINEY FORESHORE.
  MR. CLANCY () (for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE) ()asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Why the recent proceedings against parties drawing gravel from Killiney foreshore were taken in his name, and not in the name of the Dublin, Wick-low, and Wexford Railway Company, who were the parties interested; whether it is true that the public have been drawing sand from the foreshore from time immemorial, long before the railway line was made; and, whether it is true that the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company have been drawing gravel from the foreshore since the injunction has been granted against other parties?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON),in reply, said, that as the Court had granted a decree in the case it would be improper for him to express any opinion on the facts. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, he had got no information.
  MR. CLANCYasked if the expenses would be paid by the Crown?
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the costs would not fall on the Crown.

  BOARD OF TRADE—THE LIGHTHOUSE SERVICE.
  MR. LEAasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, What applications made to the Board
  478
  of Trade by the General Lighthouse Authorities for the erection of new lights, the establishment of fog signals, and the improvement of existing lights, have been refused, on the ground that the present state of the Mercantile Marine Fund will not warrant such expenditure; and, whether the Board of Trade will initiate a Bill to provide for the maintenance of the Lighthouse Service out of the Imperial taxes, instead of the Mercantile Marine Fund, a tax levied solely on shipowners?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I cannot, within the limits of a reply to a Question, answer fully the inquiry of the hon. Member; but I may state that the expenditure for no necessary works has been refused. All the circumstances connected with the condition of the Mercantile Marine Fund are now under inquiry; but there is no intention of providing for the maintenance of the Lighthouse Service out of Imperial funds.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— ARREST OF MR. W. O'BRIEN, M.P.
  MR. BYRON REEDasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is customary, and, if customary, whether it is proper, for police officers who are in charge of prisoners arrested under magisterial warrant to give the said prisoners facilities for addressing public meetings whilst they are in custody, and for otherwise conducting themselves as though no legal restraint had been put upon them?
  DR. TANNER: Before that Question is answered, Mr. Speaker, I beg to call attention to its terms, and to ask your opinion whether it is right for the words "whether it is proper" to appear in the Question? I ask that with a certain amount of confidence, in consequence of those words having, on a recent occasion, been struck out of a Question I addressed to the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I see no harm in the Question, nor anything that is un-Parliamentary or improper in it.
  DR. TANNER: The words were struck out in my case, Sir.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (): It is not customary, and is, in my opinion, highly improper, for police officers

  479
  who are in charge of prisoners arrested under warrant to give the prisoners facilities for addressing public or any meetings while they are in custody, or for conducting themselves as though no legal restraint had been put upon them.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) complains that certain words were struck out of a Question of his. Of course, that all depends upon what the context was.
  DR. TANNER: They were struck out in consequence of being an expression of opinion.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE FATAL RIOT AT MITCHELSTOWN.
  MR. LABOUCHERE(for Mr. JOHN MORLEY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government propose to appoint a Commission, or otherwise to institute a public inquiry, into the circumstances of the loss of life at Mitchelstown, as was done in the case of the Belfast riots in 1886?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Belfast inquiry was conducted under an Act of Parliament, and without such an Act no sworn inquiry can take place. The proceedings at Mitchelstown will probably be made the subject of judicial investigation; and it will be highly inconvenient and prejudicial to the ends of justice to have two concurrent inquiries on the same subject carried on at the same time. It is obvious that the case of Belfast is in no way analogous to the case of Mitchelstown; and an inquiry into the deplorable events which occurred at the latter place would necessarily take the form of a criminal investigation, conducted by a tribunal created ad hoc, which, I think, the hon. Member would hardly recommond.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government would consider the advisability of compensating those among the injured at Mitchelstown who have not been proved guilty of any illegal act, and also of providing for the families of those killed?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The
  480
  hon. and gallant Gentleman will, I am sure, upon consideration, see that the Question is at present premature. But the Government is not aware of any precedent in the direction indicated, nor are they aware that there is any fund out of which compensation should be made.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—THE SUGAR BOUNTIES—THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.
  MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether Her Majesty's Government have as yet received further replies to the invitations to the proposed International Conference on Sugar Bounties; and, whether it is yet decided when and where that Conference will be held?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: Since the answer was returned to the hon. Member's Question on the 26th ultimo Portugal has replied. She declines the invitation, as she has no interest in the question. In the invitation London was proposed as the place of meeting. No date has yet been fixed, or can be proposed, until all the Powers principally concerned have accepted; but the invitation, which was dated July 2, stated that Her Majesty's Government attached great importance to an early decision being arrived at.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—CHARITY RENT-CHARGES.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he will grant a Return of the Charities of which the rent-charges or other payments have been withheld, or attempted to be withheld, to the knowledge of the Charity Commissioners during the last 10 years?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The same objections will in great measure hold good to granting the Return in the form now suggested, as I mentioned in replying to a similar inquiry a month ago; and I am further informed that it would be by no means easy to make a complete or satisfactory Return. I will, however, cause further inquiries to be

  481
  made of the Commissioners in the matter.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—THE SUGAR BOUNTIES—THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE—APPOINTMENT OF A DELEGATE.
  MR. CONWAYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Government has appointed a Delegate to represent Great Britain and Ireland at the forthcoming Conference on Sugar Bounties; and, whether such Delegate will be armed with powers calculated to neutralize the effects of the bounties of any nation refusing to abolish the same?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: No Delegate has yet been appointed, and his instructions have not yet been drawn up. The object of the Conference is to arrive at a common agreement, and the proposed basis of negotiation is wide. It is unnecessary at present to anticipate the event of disagreement.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—ALLEGED MISCONDUCT IN THE CORK THEATRE.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any further steps have been taken by the police authorities in the City of Cork to bring to justice the men who were guilty of gross misconduct and drunkenness on a recent occasion in the Cork Theatre; whether their respective names were Fitzgerald, son of the Knight of Glynn, and Hussey, son of Samuel Hussey, the well known land agent; and, whether their statement that they were magistrates, and if the address given by them, the County Cork Club, is correct?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am afraid I have no information to give the hon. Gentleman.
  DR. TANNER: When am I to get an answer? Is it in consequence of these gentlemen being friends of the right hon. Gentleman, and of high social position, that he will not inquire into the matter?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THEATRES, &c, METROPOLIS—CAPTAIN SHAW'S REPORT
  MAJOR RASCHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will order the publication of Captain Shaw's Report on London Theatres?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (),in reply, said, the Report was confidential, and he would consult with the Lord Chamberlain and the Metropolitan Board of Works as to whether it could be published with public advantage.

  THE MAGISTRACY (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE DARTMOUTH MAGISTRACY.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the reports in The Western Morning News of 28th July, and in The Dartmouth Chronicle of 29th July last, of an action for assault (Cleland v. Owen) tried at the Assizes at Exeter, from which it appears that on a Sunday afternoon two Justices of the Peace of the Borough of Dartmouth and County of Devon engaged in a personal encounter on a public road, near Dartmouth, and gave each other black eyes; whether the Lord Chief Justice, who presided at the trial, observed, with regard to the sworn evidence of one of the parties, that he "could not be depended on in a question of fact;" and, what action the Lord Chancellor proposes to take in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS),in reply, said, the Lord Chancellor had made inquiries with reference to the subject-matter of this Question; but he had not yet been able to arrive at a decision.

  WAR OFFICE—THE TOWER GARDENS.
  MR. FISHERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has yet come to a decision as to the Memorial for the opening of the Tower Gardens to the public?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I am glad to say that Her Majesty has approved of the opening, as an experiment, of the gardens of the covered way

  483
  of the Tower of London, under Rules now being framed.

  CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS—CENSUS OF 1881.
  MR. TUITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can state the cause of the delay of the Civil Service Commission in carrying out the decision of the Treasury with regard to the bonuses of those Civil Service Writers who served as temporary clerks on the Census of 1881?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): There are some points of detail connected with this matter upon which the Civil Service Commissioners are in correspondence with the Treasury; but as soon as these points are settled payments will be made.

  "BOYCOTTING" (IRELAND)—THE REV. H. DOLAMORE.
  MR. H. J. WILSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it has been reported to him that the Reverend H. Dolamore has been "Boycotted" by the members of the Methodist New Connection, of Priest-hill, near Hillsborough, County Down, on account of his opinions as a Liberal and Home Ruler; whether he is aware that Mr. Dolamore has been obliged to resign his position; and, what steps he proposes to take in this case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I understand that the rev. gentleman referred to, who was appointed to the charge of a Methodist church near Hillsborough, County Down, in June last, had dealt with political opinions in the pulpit which were objectionable to his congregation, the large majority of whom ceased to attend the church, and that he has in consequence resigned his position. The Government do not see anything in the matter calling for interference on their part.

  INLAND REVENUE—ARREST OF W DELANY, OF CORK, FOR NON-PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that William Delany, of Cork, has been arrested at Cardiff for non-payment of Income Tax; whether
  484
  he is aware that William Delany has no residence at Cardiff, and no source of income there or in any part of England; that he is in the employment, at a small salary, of cattle shippers, in the City of Cork, who send him with their live stock to Cardiff; whether it is on the assumption of his being the owner of these live stock that he has been assessed with payment of Income Tax, which assessment should be made against his employers, if at all; and, under the circumstances, how long it is intended to keep him in prison?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON) (): Yes, Sir; William Delany has been arrested for non-payment of Income Tax due for the last three years, and is liable to be kept in prison, without bail, until he pays the duty in arrear with costs, or gives security for payment. As to the additional points which the hon. Member has added to the Question to-day, time has not permitted me to inform myself; but I presume that Delany has had the same opportunity of appeal as anyone else against the assessment to Income Tax.
  DR. TANNER: Am I to understand from the hon. Gentleman that though he has got no money to pay he is to be kept in prison for an unlimited time?
  MR. JACKSON: I hope he will not be kept in prison for an unlimited time. It is quite open to any of his friends to take him out on bail. I had better not go into the case; but I think there is some difference of opinion as to whether he is able to pay or not.
  DR. TANNERsaid, there was some misunderstanding about this man. His employer was a large cattle dealer; but he was not himself at all a wealthy man.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL—AGE PENSIONS.
  MR. GENT-DAVISasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Board of Admiralty is prepared to increase the amount given from the funds of Greenwich Hospital for age pensions; and whether it proposes to improve the investments of the Greenwich Hospital Fund?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (A LORD of the ADMIRALTY): Under the present Administration the amount distributed in Greenwich Age Pensions has been in-

  485
  creased from £71,256 to £78,650, an increase of over £7,000. The expenditure on special pensions has also been largely increased. Within the past year the income of Greenwich Hospital has been increased by £4,000 a-year by the re-investment of £580,000.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—POST OFFICE AT CARLOW.
  COLONEL THE O'GORMAN MAHONasked the Postmaster General. Whether his attention has been directed to the character and condition of the post office in the town of Carlow; whether representations have been made by the Town Commissioners and by the traders of Carlow to the effect that the present post office building there is totally unsuited to the requirements of the district; and whether the Inspector of the post office has expressed his concurrence in those representations; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to provide, without delay, the increased accommodation necessary?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Better accommodation is required for the Post Office business at Carlow. For some time past the Postmaster has been looking out for other premises, but, hitherto, without success. It is now under consideration whether the present office cannot be adequately enlarged and improved at a moderate expense.
  MR. CLANCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Postmaster has only to cross to the opposite side of the street to find ample accommodation?
  MR. RAIKES: I understand some accommodation may be obtained in Carlow, but at a price entirely out of the question for the Post Office to agree with.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—HIGH SHERIFFS.
  MR. CLANCY(for Mr. SEXTON)asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether a High Sheriff has the right to enter prisons and visit prisoners within his bailiwick?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER),in reply, said, that a High Sheriff had no right to enter prisons, or visit prisoners, within his county or shire. The only
  486
  right of entry to the prisons now possessed by the Sheriff was in connection with the execution of the sentence of death. Perhaps he should add that a High Sheriff could not act as a Justice of the Peace during his year of office.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887–7TH AND 11TH SECTIONS—NOTICE IN THE "DUBLIN WEEKLY NEWS."
  MR. KIMBERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to a statement in The Weekly News, a newspaper alleged to be the property of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who is a Member of this House, which, after referring to the 7th and 11th sections of the Crimes Act, which enable the Lord Lieutenant to ordain it to be unlawful to publish the proceedings of certain Associations, and that any person publishing such proceedings renders himself liable to six months' imprisonment, proceeds to give the following notice:—
  "We, therefore, give notice to all whom it may concern that if any branch of the National League be ordered out of existence by the Viceroy, and if its Committee or Members continue to meet, as we are satisfied they ought to do, we shall publish reports from them sent to us by their secretaries or other authorized officers, precisely as if no Coercion Act ever existed;"
  and, whether, since the proprietor of this paper is a Justice of the Peace, Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps in the matter?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The attention of the Government has been called to the notice referred to by my hon. Friend. It is believed that The Weekly News belongs to Mr. T. D. Sullivan, who is a Member of this House, and who is, as Lord Mayor of Dublin, an ex officio Justice of the Peace. If any such action as is referred to in the notice is taken, the Government will take such steps as are necessary to vindicate the law.

  ACTS OF PARLIAMENT—PRINTING AND PUBLICATION.
  MR.HOBHOUSEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he is aware that it is generally impossible for the public to obtain printed copies of an Act of Parliament for weeks after it has

  487
  received the Royal Assent; and, if, in order to avoid this inconvenience, he will be good enough to give directions that the Acts passed this Session shall be printed and published with as little delay as possible?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): We are fully alive to the importance of placing Acts of Parliament as cheaply and as quickly as possible in the hands of the public. The price has this year been much reduced, and if anything can be done to hasten delivery I will do all in my power to insure it; but it does not appear, on inquiry, that any undue delay has occurred recently.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—CURRENT PROCEEDINGS IN COURTS OF LAW—DISCUSSIONS IN PARLIAMENT.
  MR. HOBHOUSEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, in view of the discussions that have taken place this Session on legal proceedings actually pending in the Courts of Law, and of the recent ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means that he has no power to stop such discussions, the Government will propose a Rule of Procedure next Session to prohibit such discussions on pending proceedings, except where the Privileges of the House are affected thereby?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The question raised by the hon. Member will be carefully considered during the Recess by Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the authorities of the House.

  TRUCK ACT.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he would direct the special attention of the Procurators Fiscal to the provisions of the Truck Act, with a view to their being properly carried out?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): It is not, as a general rule, necessary to call the special attention of Procurators Fiscal to their duties. I shall, however, be issuing a Circular in connection with the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, and I shall be very glad to call their attention in the
  488
  Circular to the provisions of the Truck Act.

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the now duties imposed upon Inspectors of Mines by the Coal Mines Regulation Act, and on Inspectors of Factories by the Truck Act, he would communicate to them a summary of the two Acts?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Certainly; I shall be reconsidering the instructions given to the Inspectors of Mines in consequence of the change in the law; and I shall take care that the matters referred to by the hon. Member are brought under their notice.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND)—POLLUTION OF LOCH LOMOND.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he had any further communication to make to the House with reference to the pollution of Loch Lomond?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Just before coming down to the House I received a letter from Dr. Littlejohn, who was sent to make special investigation. He mentions that his Report is now on its way to London. I have no reason to suppose that the Report will have any other tendency than what I stated before in answer to the hon. Member.

  BOARD OF TRADE (RAILWAY DEPARTMENT)— RAILWAY PASSENGERS.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, having regard to the practical difficulties of complying with the Circular as to separate carriages for ladies, and to the dangers to passengers generally in the present system, he would urge on the Railway Companies the advisability of their voluntarily providing for all passenger trains efficient means of communication between the passengers and the servants of the Company in charge of the train, such as they were now compelled, under Section 22 of the Act of 1868, to provide for trains which travelled more than 20 miles without stopping?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS), in reply, said, he had only just received the Question of the hon. Member. He was not prepared to admit the accuracy of the first part of the Question—namely, that there were practical difficulties in complying with the Circular issued by the Board of Trade to Railway Companies as to separate carriages. He had no information to that effect. With regard to the suggestion in the second part of the Question, he thought, in the absence of the receipt by the Board of Trade of the answers to the Circular, it would be premature on the part of the Department to suggest at present any further means for the safety of passengers.

  BOARD OF TRADE (RAILWAY DEPARTMENT)— FATAL ACCIDENTS AT THE LEVEL CROSSING AT BROMLEY.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he would lay on the Table the Reports of Major General Hutchinson regarding the three fatal accidents which had taken place on the railway near Bromley?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS),in reply, said, the Reports of the Board of Trade Inspector had not yet been received, and he was unable to say whether they would be in his hands before Parliament was prorogued. In the event of the House being prorogued he would show the Reports to the hon. Member if he called at the Board of Trade Offices.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—IMPRISONMENT OF MR. W. O'BRIEN, M.P.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention had been called to the statement quoted in The St. James's Gazette, to the effect that the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) was lodged in a cell 9 feet by 4 only, and badly lighted; and if he would take steps to see that a Member of that House, as an untried prisoner, should, at any rate, get reasonable accommodation?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): My atten-
  490
  tion has not been called to the statement, nor am I aware of the fact stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  COLONEL NOLAN: If the right hon. Gentleman finds the statement is true, will he see that the hon. Member for North-East Cork receives proper treatment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, Sir. So far as I can I will see that any untried prisoner is properly treated.
  COLONEL NOLAN: But will the right hon. Gentleman exert himself a little for the sake of a Member of this House?
  [No reply.]

  IMPORTATION OF DESTITUTE ALIENS.
  In reply to Captain COLOMB (Tower Hamlets, Bow, &c),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that Her Majesty's Government was fully alive to the importance of placing some restriction on the importation of destitute foreigners into this country; but there were many serious difficulties in the way of dealing with it, among them the right of asylum, in this country. It would be unwise for him to say more than that the Government would give the matter their most serious consideration.

  PRISONERS UNDER THE CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—TREATMENT, &c.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which he had given him private Notice, Whether in view of the answer which he gave yesterday, that persons who might be imprisoned under the Crimes Act would not be allowed to see their friends for three months, special care would be taken that persons so imprisoned should not seriously suffer in health; and, whether the precedent set by the late Mr. Forster would be followed, in accordance with which prisoners who had so suffered were released from prison?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Prison Rules, under which sentences will be carried out under the Crimes Act, will be precisely identical with the Prison Rules used under other circumstances. No special system of release for prisoners

  491
  suffering in health will be adopted; but I will make every effort to see that no person in prison suffers in health.
  MR. DILLON: In view of the fact that prisoners are systematically starved under the ordinary Rules, will the right hon. Gentleman see that some relaxation is made?
  [No reply.]

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— ATTACK ON THE POLICE AT BALLYPOREEN.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it was a fact, as reported in the morning papers, that in consequence of a public-house brawl which took place last night at Bally-poreen the police intervened and subsequently fired on the people; and whether it was a fact that they fired; and, if so, for what reason this further step was taken in a village within five miles of Mitchelstown?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It is a fact that the police fired; but whether, under the circumstances, it is a fact that they fired on the people I leave the House to judge. I will simply state the facts. An attack was made at Bally-poreen on a patrol of two policemen by nine men. One of the police was felled to the ground by the blow of a stone which was thrown at him by a man who was some 10 yards distant. This man and another ran at the constable, who was lying on the ground, with the apparent intention of kicking him while down. The constable fired two revolver shots at them, when they all ran away except one (Baldwin), who was arrested by the second policeman.
  DR. TANNER: This is a telegraphic despatch. How does it come to pass that the right hon. Gentleman is able to give such accurate information upon certain Questions, while he declines to give us any information upon others?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  ORDER—THE CONDITION OF AGRICULTURE.
  MR. BROOKFIELDasked Mr. Speaker, as a point of Order, Whether it would be competent for him, on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, to call attention to
  492
  the present state of the hop industry, and to the general condition of agriculture?
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that any such question as the condition of agriculture or of the hop industry could properly be raised on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. There must be some connection between the matter and the appropriation of expenditure for the year.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jackson.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROCLAMATION OF THE MEETING AT BALLYCOREE, NEAR ENNIS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. COXsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the House to the proclamation of the Ballycoree meeting. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) had said, with a good deal of emphasis, that they were justified in proclaiming the meeting, because notices appeared in the streets of Ennis calling on the people to remember Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien. He (Mr. Cox) would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was he aware of the fact that last November, when the present Government was in Office, one of the greatest meetings held in Clare, and perhaps in the South of Ireland, was held in Ennis for the purpose of unveiling a monument to the Manchester Martyrs; that it was summoned by placard; that it was attended by at least 30,000 people with bands and banners; that Mr. John O'Leary, an ex-Fenian prisoner, and other extreme politicians in Ireland addressed the meeting, and the Government did not think it right or necessary, considering

    493
    the condition of the county, to proclaim or suppress that meeting, although, according to the cooked statistics got up for the purposes of the right hon. Gentleman, the county was in a more disturbed condition than now? If the Government could justify the proclamation of the Ballycoree meeting by the appearance of a notice asking the people to remember Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien, why did they not suppress the meeting specially convened to do honour to those martyrs? The people of Ireland believed that the reason of the Government in not proclaiming the meeting was, by bringing police and military into Ennis, to try and provoke the people to crime. It was only by the people of Ireland resorting to crime and outrage that the present Government could continue in Office, or justify themselves before the people of England. The efforts of the Irish Members would be directed during the coming winter to trying to prevent the people from falling into the net spread for them by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. There was another reason for proclaiming the meeting. It was announced that his hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Philip Stanhope) would speak at the meeting, and this invasion of Ireland by English Members was filling the Government with dread. The Government could not prevent Englishmen from going to Ireland and seeing with their own eyes the real condition of the people. The right hon. Gentleman had reason to fear the English invasion of Ireland more than the threatened Fenian invasion of some years ago. For every meeting in Clare that the Chief Secretary proclaimed they would hold not one meeting, but a dozen meetings if necessary. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), speaking last night, said the Government had every reason to be satisfied at the result of the Ennis meeting. He (Mr. Cox) wished them joy of their satisfaction; and, speaking on behalf of the people of Clare, he could tell them that they were satisfied also, for they held three meetings instead of one. So far as the general conduct of the police was concerned he had nothing to complain of; but he did not thank the rank and file for that, and though it might not be to the advantage
    494
    of any Government official in Ireland to receive praise from an Irish Nationalist, yet he (Mr. Cox) considered he would not be doing his duty if he did not declare his firm conviction to be that the streets of Ennis would have run red with blood that Sunday only for Colonel Turner, R.M., and the County Inspector, who were the two officers in charge. Colonel Turner since he had come to Clare had exercised his duty with a firm hand; but he had shown the people also that he was not going to resort to the brutality which characterized other police officers in Ireland. But what he (Mr. Cox) wanted to do was to call the attention of the House to the conduct of a junior officer and a constable. He saw with his own eyes—while he was standing at his hotel door—a party of Infantry come down the street, and the people, as they invariably do, cheered them loudly. The soldiers were followed by a force of police, who were groaned at by the people on the pathway, for they had a perfect right to groan at them, considering the treatment they received at their hands. There was no one standing in the streets, and no kind of obstruction was offered to the police; but a young officer, hearing the groaning, left the ranks and stepped two yards out of his way to get on the pavement and to shove an inoffensive man off into the road. A sub-constable, taking the cue from his superior officer, immediately took hold of the man by the back of the neck and arrested him on the spot. The man was being marched off in the midst of the police when he (Mr. Cox) jumped off a car and threatened that if the man were not immediately released he would take the parties concerned before the County Inspector. Getting alarmed at this, the sub-constable let the man go and slunk back to his place. Had he (Mr. Cox) not been there, and had he not, so to speak, arrested the police officer, this man would have been marched off to prison, would have been brought before a magistrate, and, no doubt, have got two or three months' imprisonment for assaulting the police. That was the sort of police law which they bad to contend with in Ireland, and he believed that the police had secret orders from Dublin to provoke the people as much as possible. With regard to the melancholy occurrence that had taken place in Clare during the past

    495
    few days, he wished to express his regret at the death of Head Constable Whelehan. He did it the more honestly and genuinely because he had known Head Constable Whelehan well; and he could tell the Government that if they had many such police officers in their employment in Ireland they would not be so hated and detested and despised as they were to-day. He (Mr. Cox) saw the conduct of poor Whelehan all through the Bodyke evictions, and he knew him to be deservedly popular in Ennis; but, while he felt it his duty to say that much of a deserving officer, there were other features of the Moonlighting outrage which were very suspicious, and deserved explanation. When the truth of that outrage came to be known it would be discovered that the unfortunate dupes of Moonlighters were not so much to blame—though he could not deny that they had the blood of the unfortunate Head Constable on their heads—as others behind the scenes. There was a notorious character in Clare—another Head Constable—Head Constable Maurice O'Halloran—who differed very widely from the man that was dead; and it might be considered a heartless and bloodthirsty thing for him (Mr. Cox) to say that if the man had met the fate of Head Constable Whelehan he would not stand up in his place in the House to say one word of regret for his death. It was well known in Clare that this man O'Halloran was travelling night and day out of uniform giving blood money and promoting and encouraging outrage and crime throughout the length and breadth of the county, His conduct was recently brought under the notice of this House, and it was proved that he wrote a letter in his (Mr. Cox's) name sending £10 to a man for the purpose of promoting and concocting outrages in Clare. The statement in The Standard needed some explanation—namely, that the Constabulary were warned by an anonymous letter that an organized attack was to be made on Sexton's house; and he believed that if the truth was ever known it would be found that these unfortunate Moonlighters at Lisdoonvarna were but the dupes of this man and of others. Wherever O'Halloran had gone his footsteps had been dogged by crime and outrage; and so long as that man was allowed to go about Clare crime
    496
    would flourish in the county. It was passing strange that wherever this man O'Halloran went there were crimes and outrages, which ceased as soon as he left for a fresh district. It was a monstrous thing that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary should get up in the House and justify that man's conduct. Until O'Halloran was punished the people of Clare would believe that the Government were parties to his nefarious practices.

    FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)—APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TO VACANCIES.—OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, this being the last opportunity which the Scotch Members would have of saying anything to the Scotch Department before the close of the Session, and as very important appointments to vacancies in the Scotch Fishery Board were to be made in the course of the autumn, he must invite the attention of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) to the representations which had been made to the Government by the Scottish fishermen through their Representatives in Parliament. The fishermen throughout the whole of Scotland were agreed on one thing—namely, that the constitution of the Scotch Fishery Board was most unsatisfactory. The members of the Board were so constituted as to give an undue preference—if he might use the expression—to the fresh water fisheries. At all events, it was so constituted as to lead to the neglect of the sea fisheries; and there was not, he believed, a member of that Board who had any practical acquaintance with the sea and herring fisheries. Now, as these appointments were to be made this year, it was most important that whoever the Government might choose for membership of the Board should be persons practically acquainted with the sea fishings, and particularly with the herring fishing. The fishermen had made representations to the Government to the effect that some means should be adopted to ascertain their opinions with regard to the persons who ought to be appointed. This was not a case in which he thought that representation was of the first consequence, but it was a case in which efficiency was of the first consequence; and he trusted the

    497
    Government would give their best attention to securing some person—he did not say whether he should be a fisherman or a curer—but, at all events, some person who was practically acquainted with sea and herring fishing. He hoped also the Government would, during the Recess, take into their consideration the advisability of amending the Act under which the Scotch Fishery Board was appointed, so that greater satisfaction might be given to the fishermen of Scotland. There was another point to which he wished the Government to give their attention during the Recess. Recently a Paper was sent round to hon. Members, giving particulars with regard to the mussel beds round the coast of Scotland. He found those beds might be divided into three categories—(1) those which belonged to the Crown; (2) those which were alleged to belong to private individuals, but for the use of which no charge was made; and (3) those which were alleged to belong to private individuals, and for which a charge was made. What he submitted was this—that where mussel beds were established by the industry of any person, it was reasonable that he should have remuneration for the industry which he had employed upon them; but where mussel beds were the gift of Nature, it was most unreasonable and unfair that any person should, under any pretext whatever, be allowed to impose a tax for the use of those beds. The total amount of money received for these beds was very small; and what he would suggest was that the Government should consider whether they might not adopt some arrangement by which compensation might be given to those proprietors who could prove that they were entitled to compensation, and by which all the mussel beds on the coast of Scotland should be taken under the control of the Crown. He made that suggestion because he anticipated that the Crown would grant the use of the beds or the produce of the beds on reasonable terms, and because, also, the Crown would be able to protect the beds from the injurious action of individuals. It was desirable that the beds should be preserved where it could be done with advantage, and he hoped the Government would give their earnest attention to the matter during the Recess. He wished, also, to call attention to an-
    498
    other matter that greatly affected a portion of his own constituents—it was the action of the Scotch Fishery Board in regard to trawling. Some time ago the Board prohibited trawling within certain extremely narrow limits—namely, in Aberdeen Bay. The people in the locality desired that beam-trawling should be prohibited within three miles of the shore; and, if that were done, he believed that would not seriously interfere with legitimate trawling operations. It was the unanimous opinion of the fishermen in Aberdeen that during the time trawling was prohibited in the bay the white fishing very materially improved. But now the Government, for reasons best known to themselves, had withdrawn that prohibition of trawling. He understood that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was to give a statement of the reasons which had influenced the Fishery Board in withdrawing this prohibition; but he did not think the Paper had as yet been published. He would invite the earnest attention of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to this point—that the fishermen along the whole coast of Scotland were unanimously of opinion that beam-trawling should be prohibited within the three mile limit. The Scotch Fishery Board had power under the Statute to make that prohibition, and he invited them at the earliest possible moment to carry it into practice. There was only one other point to which he wished to invite the attention of the Government; but it was a matter of great importance in the present position of the herring fishery of Scotland. It appeared that for some years past the price that had been paid for Scotch herrings exported to the Continent had been very seriously reduced. He believed that the curer had not only not been making money, but had actually been losing it, and the fishermen had also been losing money. There could be little doubt that the falling off in the demand for Scotch herrings was, at all events, partially due to the fact that a great many herrings had been caught in an immature condition, and in that condition exported to the Continent, thus diminishing the prestige of the Scotch herrings. The fishermen themselves desired that a close time should be adopted in regard to herring catching for exportation. The fishermen recognized that this could not effectually be

    499
    done by the Government alone; but they invited the Scotch Fishery Board in connection with the Foreign Office to take measures to procure a general Convention with foreign Powers, by which a close time should be made. The attention of the Board ought also to be directed to another point in connection with a subject brought before the House—namely, the Railway Traffic Bill. He observed a statement the other day by a fisherman at a meeting at Aberdeen who had been fishing from Anstruther that the cost of transit of the fish by railway for the past two years to certain markets had exceeded the amount realized by the sale of the fish when they arrived at their destination. He need not point out that in these circumstances the railway rates were entirely prohibitive, and were fatal to the development of the fishing industry. Of course, this was a question that was a large one, and he did not accuse the Railway Companies entirely of the blame; but, at the same time, he thought it was a matter to which the attention of the Scotch Fishery Board should be directed in order to obtain cheaper transit. It was also worthy of consideration, having regard to the food supply of large towns, whether the Government should not insist upon a special rate for fish carriage. If a low rate of carriage for fish were adopted the railways would recoup themselves by the increased quantity that would be sent over their lines. He invited the attention of the Government during the Recess to these points; and he trusted that before Parliament had again met something effectual would have been done for an industry which, at the present moment, was seriously languishing, and which required the immediate attention of the Scotch Department.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he wished to endorse and confirm all that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) had said. He urged the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to bring the matters referred to before the attention of the Secretary for Scotland. He desired also to say that he believed it would be highly beneficial if the mussel beds in his neighbouring county were placed under the charge of the Fishery Board. He was strongly convinced of the advantage of entrusting
    500
    to the Fishery Board the control of the salmon fishings, now so badly exercised by the Crown Land Commissioners. A large revenue was now collected in Kincardineshire from the sea salmon fishings, and, as past experience showed, very indifferently collected, but would be carefully and well carried out by the fishery officers of the Fishery Board. He would also ask the Lord Advocate to bring to notice the necessity of improving the fishery harbours, for upon those improvements depended the extension of the Scotch fisheries. The appointment to the Fishery Board of a skilled engineer, on a salary, instead of one remunerated by fees, was a much-needed change. All these changes would be brought forward at the be ginning of next Session, and the action taken thereon inquired into.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The points which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) has brought forward are before the Scotch Office at the present moment; and the opinions which he and other Scotch Members have at various times expressed upon it will receive, and are receiving, our best attention. My hon. and learned Friend referred to five points. The first question, of the Fishery Board, I think it must be plain to anyone that it is highly desirable there should be a representation on the Board which would be satisfactory to the fishing community themselves, as giving them confidence that there was someone on the Board who thoroughly understood their wants and requirements. I may say that that matter has been fully considered; but, as I pointed out before, there may be very great difficulty, possibly, in obtaining proper representatives of the fishermen among the fishermen themselves. It may not be easy to obtain fishermen of sufficient experience who can afford to lose the necessary amount of time to discharge the duties of an unpaid office. But we do hope that we shall be able to find someone who, if not altogether a practical fisherman, should be a person whom the fishermen will be satisfied will efficiently represent them on the Board. The question of mussel beds is one of great importance, and I may say that every Scotch Member will recognize that it is also a question of great diffi-

    501
    culty. It will require to be considered with the greatest possible care; because it would be the most disastrous thing possible to make any change at all, if it were not effectual in increasing the store of mussels, and preventing them being frittered away, as too often, I am afraid, from the improvident habits of the fishermen, they have been frittered away in the past. With regard to beam-trawling, it must not be forgotten that this question is at present in an experimental stage. It is not allowable for the Scotch Fishery Board to take steps permanently shutting up any fishing ground until they have thoroughly satisfied themselves that fishing by any particular mode would be injurious to that fishery. They are at present engaged in experimental efforts with a view to determining this point, and it is quite evident that one of the most practical modes of arriving at a judgment upon beam-trawling is to allow beam-trawling in a particular district at one time, and to prohibit it at another time in the same district. This is exactly what has been done in the case of Aberdeen Bay. It has been prohibited for a certain time. It is now again open, and the result of this double experiment must be valuable in guiding us as to what is to be done round the whole country. My hon. and learned Friend has referred to the depreciation in the value of Scotch herrings during the last few years. That is a matter which also requires very careful consideration. I remember very well myself when the attempt to have a close time for small herrings in Scotland led to many disastrous scenes, and sometimes loss of life, on the West Coast in former days. It is a matter which requires grave consideration, and I shall take care that it is considered during the Recess. The last question which my hon. and learned Friend raised was in regard to railway rates. I am afraid that we in Scotland are too weak to effect anything in the matter, unless we are backed up by the more powerful interests in England, which are also deeply interested in the question. Trading people of all classes suffer most dreadfully in consequence of the extraordinary present arrangements of railway rates. But it certainly presses espeally hardly upon those who follow the fishing industry, which is an industry for which it is imperatively necessary
    502
    to have the means of rapid transit to proper markets. I can corroborate what my hon. and learned Friend has stated—namely, that in some cases it has been distinctly proved that the cost of transit to suitable places in England is so high that the fish, when delivered and sold, actually do not realize as much as the rates that have been charged. That is a deplorable state of things which, it is hoped, may be met in some way or other; but I am afraid that I cannot undertake that the Scotch Fishery Board will deal with the question of railway rates.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE IRISH NATIONAL FORESTERS AT PORTRUSH—FIRING FROM A TRAIN.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    SIR CHARLES LEWISsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to the administration of the Crimes Act in the North of Ireland. On Sunday, the 7th August, on the occasion of an excursion of Foresters from Belfast to Portrush, a disturbance occurred in the latter place. On that occasion two persons belonging to the Foresters' excursion party were arrested for firing off pistols in the streets; and about 15 or 16 persons of the other party, who belonged to Coleraine, were also arrested for taking part in what was alleged to be a public riot. It was a rather remarkable circumstance that the two persons who were charged with firing off loaded revolvers on this occasion were summoned under the ordinary jurisdiction before the local magistrates, while the 15 other persons, who were charged with no act of misconduct, but merely taking part in a riot, were summoned under the Crimes Act before a Crimes Court of two Resident Magistrates. That Court, it was known, was intended to have a specially severe jurisdiction. The two cases were heard on the same day. The two Resident Magistrates sat first, and they exercised their jurisdiction on one party. The 15 persons from Coleraine who were charged with taking part in the riot came before the Court, and, whilst one was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, the others were sent to gaol for three months with hard labour. The Resident Magistrates then retired from the Bench, and the Local Magistrates took their places, and exercised

    503
    their jurisdiction over the two persons charged with firing loaded revolvers. One of the men was let off on his own recognizances to be of good behaviour, and the other was committed to the Sessions. These two prosecutions arose out of exactly the same set of circumstances, and should have been operated on impartially, and dealt with impartially before the same tribunal, instead of which one set of persons was brought up before the Crimes Act jurisdiction and considerable punishment inflicted, and the other set before the ordinary Petty Sessional jurisdiction, with the result he had stated. If that was the way the Crimes Act was to be administered in the North of Ireland, he was afraid it would cause considerable heartburnings about the matter. He had to ask that the scales of justice should be held equally between the two parties. He was sorry to have to take up the time of the House even for five minutes on that subject; but he felt it to be his duty to draw attention to the singular difference in the treatment of the two cases. It might be said that the persons firing the revolvers did not come under the Crimes Act. He should have thought that under Section 4 any person acting in the riot would have come under the Act; that any person firing off a revolver in the riot would have taken more part in it than a person who was merely guilty of disorder. Whatever might be the result, he had every confidence that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would look into the matter, if he had not done so, and see that fair play was done; and when he read the evidence he would say that there was no justification whatever for inflicting such severe sentences is the case of one party, while the others were dealt with so lightly.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was not sorry to see that the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) was beginning to cry out on behalf of his constituents. When the hon. Baronet's friends came under the operation of the Crimes Act, when his constituents felt the severity of the Act, it might open the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He did not blame the hon. Baronet, but thought he was quite right in bringing forward the case of his constituents. He was not sufficiently acquainted with the case to
    504
    say whether the prisoners were punished too severely; but he know that the sentences were very severe under the Crimes Act. He wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to a kindred subject—namely, the criminal treatment of political prisoners under the Crimes Act. He understood, from an answer which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had given him that evening, that there was no difference between political offenders and criminals under the Crimes Act in the matter of prison treatment. The right hon. Gentleman might say that he had no power in the matter; but he (Colonel Nolan) did not believe it; he was of opinion that the Government had the power to relax the severity of prison rules, and he advised them to exercise it in the case of political prisoners. If they did so, they would smooth down much of the exasperation which would be caused by the administration of this very severe Act. It was the custom, of all civilized nations to draw this distinction, and it had been the custom in this country to make the distinction he referred to, until about 25 years ago, when there were no political offenders anywhere but in Ireland. The idea was to degrade political offenders down to the level of ordinary criminals; but the actual effect in Ireland was the reverse of that, for it had raised the ordinary criminals to the level of political offenders. It would not be difficult to draw a broad distinction between political and criminal offences. Speeches and writings in newspapers ought never to be considered other than political offences. If the right hon. Gentleman made no effort to mitigate the ordinary prison rules, and if he put those prisoners to odious tasks and to hard and cruel work, he would store up for the Government and the country an amount of hatred which it would be very hard to extinguish. What an absurd thing it would be to subject men to hard, cruel, or degrading treatment, and then to drag them to the House of Commons to decide vital issues, as soon as they came out of prison—questions of peace and war on which the whole interest of the Empire might be at stake.
    MR. DILLONsaid, it had become perfectly manifest that the Irish Executive could inflict personal ven-

    505
    geance on their political opponents. It was probable, in view of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) the previous night, that a large number of the Irish Members would be in gaol before Christmas, and they demanded that security should be given that the Members of the Irish Party should not be treated as pickpockets. They knew perfectly well that there were many Members on the other side of the House who were of opinion that the Irish Members ought to be treated as pickpockets; but he did not believe the majority of the people of this country shared that view. He had had personal opportunities of noticing what the character of the treatment of prisoners in Irish gaols was. He had made it his business to inquire what the treatment of prisoners for ordinary offences was. He tested the treatment with the most disastrous result; and the conclusion he came to deliberately was that the treatment and food were such as no ordinary offender, no matter how disgraceful he was, ought to receive—it was simply slow starvation. He was able to try and experiment on some prisoners in this way. He and some of his friends were placed in the infirmary of the prison at Kilmainham, under Mr. Forster's Act, by which the treatment of prisoners was humane compared with what it was under the present Act. They had a prisoner assigned to them as servant at 1d. a-day. This man was a strong man; but when he was assigned to do their work, they were struck with the extraordinary pallor of his countenance. All appearance of blood had left him, and they discovered that he was in a state of desperate starvation. He was a stout man, and the food with which he was supplied was inadequate to supply the cravings of hunger. There was a certain coal-hole to which this man was sent to get coal, and they arranged to conceal in this coal-hole a certain amount of food from their dinners each day. The result of this was remarkable. Within one week the man's cheeks got red, his colour returned, and his whole appearance was clearly altered. It was as clear a case of starvation as ever he saw in his life. He claimed it was a cruel and savage treatment to take a man—say, a labourer-—who got drunk—some of the Members of the House of Commons got drunk, and also some great
    506
    swells in England—he said it was cruel and shameful to take that man and starve him, so that when he came out he was unable to work for his bread. If the Members of the House were to be subjected to treatment of that character, simply and solely for speeches delivered in Ireland, the people of England would ask themselves this question—"Who are the men who have sentenced these public politicians, and how are they to judge whether the speeches were punishable or not?" They would also ask what was the nature of the evidence on which these men were sentenced. Before he left this question of prison treatment, he wished to say a word or two regarding the treatment of his hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien). All who were acquainted with the hon. Member for North-East Cork knew perfectly well he was a man of delicate constitution. The Government might claim it was necessary to arrest him because he did not obey the Court. He (Mr. Dillon) thought that the Court was an infamous Court. The Government might contend they were justified in arresting the hon. Gentleman; but why had they postponed the trial for nine days, and why did they keep him in prison during that time? Why, if they were gentlemen, had they stooped to so mean and contemptible an action in order to revenge themselves on a man whose pen and tongue had made them smart more than once? Why had they not put him into a decent room, as any ordinary manly person would have done, in order to lighten as much as possible the deprivation of liberty which must be such a great punishment to any man? He said that if any man of the Irish Executive had gentlemanly and honourable feelings in his heart, the very reason that the hon. Member for North-East Cork had spoken and written of him would have made him scrupulously avoid anything which could be interpreted as mean and petty personal revenge against the hon. Member. He said to thrust the hon. Member into an ordinary prison cell, and to treat him as a common convict and a disgraceful offender, and to keep him there for nine days, was a mean, personal vengeance against a man who had certainly used strong language against the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The

    507
    question of prison treatment would undoubtedly occupy the attention of this country during the autumn; but he would now pass from that subject to say a word or two on the question of the arrest of the hon. Member for North-East Cork and the way that arrest was carried out, and the proceedings of the Government in keeping him in gaol and postponing the trial. "When the hon. Member was on the boat at Kingstown, saying farewell to an English friend, the police thought he intended to come over and speak in Parliament. The hon. Member was approached by a detective, who informed him if he would promise not to go to Parliament he would not arrest him, but that unless he gave that promise he should be compelled to arrest him. Were they to understand the arrest was made to prevent the hon. Member taking part in the debate of last night? Did the Government suppose for one moment that he was going to run away from his arrest? Did they suppose it was not his intention to return to Ireland quite soon enough to stand his trial; and on what ground did they justify their action in informing the hon. Member that if he would not go over to Parliament he should be left at liberty, but if not he would be arrested? The interpretation they were entitled to put on that was that it was the intention of the Government to shut the hon. Member's mouth and prevent him speaking in Parliament; and he thought that was a proceeding which would demand explanation both by Members of the House and also by people outside. The hon. Gentleman very properly declined to give any promise of the kind. The next question he had to ask the Government was how, when he had been arrested, they could justify their action in postponing the trial to Friday week? There was no reason whatever why he should not have been brought up any day after the arrest. He could see no reason for this course, except the petty and vindictive spite of detaining him in prison. Was it true that the hon. Member was now placed in a cell without a fireplace—an ordinary prison cell? If it were true, it was a murderous and infamous act. Many of the gaols in Ireland—as he had reason to know—were cold and damp, and utterly deadly to a man of his hon. Friend's constitution; and to
    508
    place him in an ordinary cell, when the result of that trial was uncertain, was to do a dastardly and cowardly thing, and he thought they had a right to demand an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary on that point. He (Mr. Dillon) had read carefully the report of the hon. Member for North-East Cork's speeches, and he was of opinion that the trial would break down. Of course, it would not break down before the magistrates; but it would break down before a County Court Judge. He would once again draw attention to this point, which would inevitably dwell in the minds of the English people during the coming autumn. When they saw men put in prison like common felons they would ask on what evidence had this been done; and when they saw the only evidence on which the Crown was acting was the evidence of their paid spies, who, unless they swore according to the instructions given them, would, lose their places and be dismissed from the service—when the people of this country recognized that, they would not stand it very long. There were, undoubtedly, good men in the Irish police; but he did not believe when they saw the Representatives of Ireland thrown into gaol on the unsupported testimony of hirelings who were under the thumb of the Irish Executive, and who depended for their promotion on the zeal with which they swore their stories, and who, as they had proved, were constantly perjuring themselves in the service of their masters—when the English people saw this he had perfect confidence that they would not stand it. He had received a telegram from Cork which threw a light on these proceedings. This telegram stated that yesterday Mr. Eaton and his brother magistrate before whom the hon. Member for North-East Cork was to be tried were in the Court House at Cork, and along with them was Mr. Carson, the counsel for the Crown. Now, Captain Plunkett, who was the District Magistrate for Cork and Kerry, invited Mr. Tuohy, a reporter of The Cork Examiner, to remain. After this one of the magistrates invited Mr. Tuohy to withdraw, to enable him and his brother magistrate to consult in private with Mr. Carson, the Crown Prosecutor, over the case. This was done in spite of the fact that Mr. Tuoby had the special permission of Captain Plun-

    509
    kett to remain. Captain Plunkett stood outside the Court House while this private consultation was going on between the two magistrates and the Crown Prosecutor, and when he saw Mr. Tuohy he asked him why he was not inside. Mr. Tuohy told him that he had been put out, and that a private consultation was going on. Captain Plunkett at this seemed a good deal disconcerted, and requested Mr. Tuohy to go back into the room with him. This was a very instructive explanation of how these prosecutions were to be carried out. Evidently the two magistrates were taking their instructions from the Crown Prosecutor as to what they should do; and that was the way all these trials were to be carried out. In fact they were not trials, and that was the reason the hon. Member for North-East Cork refused to appear before the Court. They were the acts of the Executive. They were cut and dry condemnation arranged beforehand at the Castle, and carried on by the most atrocious mockery of justice by those agents who were constantly promoted for what was called good service. That was all he wanted to say about his hon. Friend's trial. It was a matter which would be heard of again and again. He believed and hoped and had the strongest conviction that the Government would be overthrown in this case. It was so trumpery a case that he could hardly conceive any County Court Judge would uphold the decision which he had no doubt the magistrates would give. If their decision should be upheld, and if the hon. Member were condemned to imprisonment, he (Mr. Dillon) deeply regretted the desperate feeling which would be excited amongst the people in Ireland and America by these acts. He had done, and would continue to do, everything in his power to assist the Ministers and the Liberal Party in removing the hatred and ill-feeling which had existed in Ireland for a long period towards England; and it was deplorable that at this time of day an act should be done by the Executive Government which would raise a storm of hatred and evil passion amongst the Irish people, the consequence of which it would be impossible for anyone to forecast or control—he did not care who he was, or what his influence might be with the masses of the people in Ireland—because there was no man now
    510
    living who was so endeared to the hearts of the Irish people as his hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork; and undoubtedly, whatever efforts might be made to the contrary, if he suffered through his imprisonment vengeance would be taken by people in Ireland or America. He said, again, that in spite of all the influence that men who believed in Constitutional means could bring to bear—and he deplored it more than words could utter—in spite of all the earnest efforts of Irish Members and the wonderfully successful efforts of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) to undo the bad work of the past and remove those feelings of hatred between the two countries, this miserable action of the Government, if persisted in, would undo everything that they had succeeded in doing, and stir up again feelings of animosity and hatred between the English and Irish people.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) had raised a question as to the trial that took place in connection with certain riots at Portrush. The hon. Baronet asserted that if the magistrates had done their duty they would have tried all the prisoners at the same time and under the same jurisdiction. He could not help thinking that the hon. Baronet had spoken under a misconception, though it was true that some of the prisoners—the rioters—were tried under the Crimes Act; but the excursionists were tried under the ordinary Law. There were two persons tried under the ordinary law for the use of firearms. One man had threatened to fire, and the other had actually fired. The man who had threatened to fire had been bound over to keep the peace for a year. It appeared to him that, so far from the person who had fired the pistol having been treated with exceptional leniency, as he had been committed to the next Assizes, it might turn out that he had been treated with greater severity. His hon. Friend said the rioters were sentenced to penalties far too serious for their offence. He had not seen the evidence, and therefore could not pronounce an opinion, even if it would have been proper for him to do so. He would remind his hon. Friend that several ex-

    511
    cursionists were injured, and that the police were injured in the execution of their duty. But if it were true that the sentences were too severe, then, no doubt, they would be corrected on appeal to the County Court Judge. As to the treatment of prisoners, he regretted to observe that the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) had left the House; and he would not advert, as he should otherwise have done, to the unfortunately violent tone which characterized too large a portion of the speech which the hon. Gentleman had addressed to the House. The contention was that an entirely different treatment ought to be applied to so-called political prisoners under the Crimes Act to what was applied to ordinary criminals. [Mr. BRUNNER: Hear, hear!] He thought the hon. Gentleman who cheered was not a Member of the House during the discussion of the Act, or he would have known that not only the opinion of the Government, but also of every competent lawyer who had pronounced an opinion on the matter, was that the Act dealt solely with offences which were already offences under the existing law. Persons, therefore, who offended against the Crimes Act offended against the ordinary law, and the only difference made by the Act related to the machinery by which they were tried. There appeard to him to be no adequate justification for different treatment of these persons after condemnation. He entirely conceded that political offences ought to be distinguished from offences that were not political; but the Government did not propose to deal, and would not deal, with offences which were political under the Crimes Act any more than under the ordinary law. Part of the speeches against prison discipline were aimed at the whole existing system, as it applied to every kind of prisoner. That might be a very proper subject for Parliamentary inquiry. He did not profess to have any knowledge of the subject. He had never been brought in contact with it, nor had he ever made it a special study; but if the question of prison discipline was to be dealt with at all, it ought to be dealt with with regard to England and Ireland at the same time, and not simply with reference to any particular Act of Parliament or any class of prisoners. It might be that prisoners were treated too harshly. By
    512
    all means let Parliament make inquiry. No one would rejoice more than he if such an inquiry produced a reform, if that reform were needed. What he had always said was that he should always to the best of his ability see that precisely the same system was adopted in Ireland as in England with regard to all prisoners who came under the law. The hon. and gallant Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) tried to draw a distinction between educated and uneducated prisoners, and between those who had been accustomed to manual labour and those who had not. He was perfectly ready to concede that the same punishment might be a very different punishment to one man and another; but he was unable to say whether any distinction of the kind was actually made in prisons. That, however, was not a question which came up only with regard to the Crimes Act; it came up with regard to the ordinary law, and in quite as striking a manner. Everybody knew that the criminal classes were not entirely composed of uneducated persons and those accustomed to manual labour. If there was any injustice in regard to these matters, by all means let it be redressed, not only in connection with persons condemned under the Crimes Act, but also in connection with others who were condemned under the ordinary law in England. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had dwelt at great length on the hardships of prison discipline. He wished they and their friends in Ireland had always recollected those hardships when they were discussing the Crimes Act at public meetings; but in speech after speech they told the unfortunate peasantry of Ireland that the Crimes Act would not have any terror for them, for, after all, they would be better off in prison than outside of it. How that kind of exhortation was consistent with the speeches just made in the House a man must have a great deal of ingenuity to discover. The hon. Member for East Mayo went the length of accusing him of so contriving matters as to put the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) in prison for several days before trial out of a feeling of personal spite, and of personal vengeance which he was supposed to entertain on account of certain articles in United Ireland. He thought at first that that suggestion was a grim joke until he re-

    513
    collected that in Monday's debate the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dillon) gave the House to understand that he was himself so moved and influenced by articles in The Times that he found it almost impossible to refrain from, as it were, giving practical contradiction to those articles by refusing to use his influence to disperse meetings peaceably in Ireland. Well, if the hon. Gentleman felt newspaper criticisms so acutely he could imagine that the hon. Gentleman attributed the same sensitiveness to him. If that were true, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would have an even more uneasy time of it than he had at the present moment. But he could assure the hon. Gentleman that no articles he had over read either in Irish or English newspapers had ever given him a moment's uneasiness or the least desire to inflict vengeance upon an editor. The main contention of the hon. Gentleman who had spoken on this question was that the Government ought to draw a wide distinction between political and other offences, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) who was the first to raise this point in the House said a broad distinction might me made if by political offences they meant speeches and writings, and by ordinary offences they meant actions. He asked the House to consider for a moment what that position amounted to. It meant that those persons who conceived it to be their duty—most unhappily and wrongly conceived it to be their duty—to urge the Irish peasant to commit ordinary offences, for which they would be treated by punishment under the ordinary law, were to receive a far less share of punishment than those whom they practically drove to the commission of crime. He could hardly believe that hon. Gentlemen, who urged that contention, were serious. He could understand that a perverted sense of public duty might induce hon. Gentlemen to urge the Irish peasants to the commission of crime; but he could not conceive that they should come down to the House and ask the House and the British public to treat those who provoked to crime in a different manner from their victims. He could hardly believe that they seriously contemplated the proposition which they asked the House to accept. For themselves—those who were going to make the speeches—they asked one measure of justice, and
    514
    for those who were going to be the dupes of their speeches another measure. He believed that when the line which those hon. Gentlemen were taking was thoroughly understood in Ireland, it would hardly conduce to the continuance of that confidence with which, doubtless, they were now treated by their followers in that country. The hon. Member for East Mayo went on to make certain specific allegations of an extraordinary kind regarding the hon. Member for North - East Cork. He (Mr. Dillon) said that the Government arrested him to prevent him coming-over and making a speech in Parliament. The hon. Gentleman seemed to regard a speech in Parliament as being as formidable as an article in a newspaper. Did the hon. Gentleman really suppose that the Government would alter by one iota the action they took in this matter in order to avoid a speech by the hon. Member for North-East Cork, or any Member of that House? It was perfectly known what kind of speech the hon. Member for North-East Cork would make if he came to the House, and it would not have made the slightest difference to the Government whether he had or had not given the House his views. The hon. Gentleman had not got the story right. It was erroneous to say that the police constable who took the hon. Member up said he would not take him up if he would promise not to come over and take part in the debate in that House. That was an entire delusion of the hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) did not think it necessary to reply to the story, which really had no foundation in fact; but the hon. Gentleman asked if the Government were deliberately keeping this Gentleman in prison instead of bringing him up at once. Surely, before making that accusation—which he supplemented by other accusations of personal spite—the hon. Gentleman might have made himself acquainted with the law under which the Government were acting. He might have made himself acquainted with the fact that Petty Sessions Courts were held at fixed intervals, and it did not rest with the Executive to hurry on the hour at which the trial took place. They had no choice in the matter. If the hon. Member for North-East Cork was at that moment in prison, whom had he got

    515
    to thank for it? If he had done what it was his bounden duty to do—namely, to obey the law and to attend on Friday at his trial; and if, further, he had done what the hon. Member for East Mayo said he would do—namely, appealed after his trial to the County Court Judge, the hon. Member would at this moment not be in the cell, whose horrors had been so feelingly described by the hon. Gentleman—he would be at large on bail. It was simply monstrous that the Government should be attacked for putting a man in prison when that man was in prison solely in consequence of his own action. The consequences were what he must have foreseen when he refused to appear in Court. He had nothing more to say on the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo but to express his regret that the hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary, at the close of his remarks, to make a violent attack on the magistrates who had to administer justice, and on the witnesses who would have to give evidence in the impending trial. The hon. Gentleman described the witnesses against the hon. Member for North-East Cork as paid spies. He also stated that all who were connected with the trial would receive the vengeance of the Irish people. The hon. Gentleman seemed to forget the result which language of that kind had already had in Ireland. He seemed to forget that one of the witnesses—one of the persons whom he described as paid spies of the Government, who gave their evidence not according to truth, but in order to get promotion in a police force—was at this moment hovering between life and death, in consequence of the brutal outrages which were inflicted on him by the mob on Friday last. Whatever view the hon. Member for East Mayo might take of the Government or of the magistrates who enforced the law, it would have been well could he have refrained from using the violent language about persons who, after all, were only doing their duty, and who in doing their duty had suffered so severely at the hands of the irresponsible ministers of vengeance whom, the hon. Gentleman had told them they must fear in future.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had expressed in rather excessive language his astonish-
    516
    ment and amazement at the tone of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). The right hon. Gentleman had also used very strong language as to the attitude taken up by the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. William O'Brien) with reference to the proceedings now pending. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that this kind of language and this kind of attitude were due to the fact that the officers of the Government were not now administering the law in the ordinary and normal sense in which it was understood in England, but were carrying out under exceptional provisions administration by an exceptional tribunal. It was because the Government by their legislation had distorted and warped the whole conception of the administration of justice that the hon. Member for North-East Cork assumed such an attitude and that the hon. Member for East Mayo used such violent language. The Government had been warned by the Opposition before this miserable Act was passed what the consequences would be and how much language they would have to hear and how many acts they would have to deal with and to grapple with—crime which in a country administered by the ordinary law as in England would never arise. The Government had themselves entirely to thank for any unreasonable imputations made upon them or any inconvenient or irregular action taken in reference to their proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had repeated now at the eleventh hour what the Opposition had systematically denied during the whole course of the Session since the Crimes Bill was introduced. The right, hon. Gentleman had assumed that every competent legal authority in the House admitted that Crimes Act created no new offence. He denied that most emphatically. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), who was as good a legal authority as any hon. Gentleman opposite, had always insisted that new crimes were created by the Crimes Act.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWAED CLARKE): He never said so.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he must stick to his text, and if his hon. and learned Friend were present, he would

    517
    say what he had already said—namely, that the Crimea Act does create new offences. It would be in the recollection of the House that the assertion had been made a 100 times on that side, and it had never been denied, that Mr. Justice Holmes himself, when Attorney General for Ireland, expressed the same opinion.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have denied that at least six times.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, that the Irish Attorney General of that day never denied it. The words were taken down by his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) the moment they were uttered.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. There is absolutely no record of these words at all in the newspapers or in any record which has been referred to. It is contrary to Mr. Justice Holmes's own statement and contrary to every statement which, has been made on this subject on this side of the House.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he could only repeat that his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, while sitting next to him, took the words down. But he did not want to argue that point. All he wanted to do was to dispute the assumption of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that all the legal authority in the House, and other great authority in the House, accepted the proposition that the Crimes Act created no new offences. As to the question of prison discipline and the treatment of prisoners who were in prison under the Crimes Act, it was no doubt true that offenders ought to be treated in a general way in the same fashion. But he appealed to any hon. Gentleman on either side of the House, who was acquainted with the practice of foreign countries in Western Europe, whether, if they imprisoned a man for a political offence, he wag not treated in an entirely different way from other offenders. Whether the hon. Member for North-East Cork, if he were convicted, would be deemed to have been in prison for a political offence he (Mr. John Morley) did not feel himself at present called upon to give judgment; but if, as the hon. Member for East Mayo said, between now and Christmas 30 or 40, or
    518
    three or four, Members of Parliament were imprisoned there was not a reasonable man in the House or the country who would not believe that they were in in prison for political offences. The speeches for which it was assumed they were to be condemned to terms of imprisonment would, no doubt, be speeches offensive to the Government because of their political complexion. He would not make any remarks on the prudence or the wisdom of the Government in instituting these proceedings. He should have thought that, even from their own point of view, and accepting their own policy, it would have been more prudent and more judicious not to have inaugurated the new régime by a comparatively unprovoked proceeding of this kind. He could only explain it on the belief that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary intended to govern Ireland between now and the time when Parliament met again in the most rigorous and most strenuous manner, and with the most uncalculating rigour that his instruments would enable him to employ. His language last night bore no other interpretation but that. He was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman answered a Question standing in his name upon the Paper, but he understood that he said that it would be impossible to grant a commission of inquiry into the action of the police at Mitchelstown on Friday last, for two reasons—one, that proceedings were or might be pending of a judicial character, and the other that an Act of Parliament would be necessary to authorize the holding of the inquiry with power to take evidence on oath. But the precedent of the Belfast Commission altogether disposed of the first reason. The Government appointed a Commission to inquire into the Belfast riots, although it was perfectly certain that judicial proceedings would arise out of those riots.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What he stated was that a Commission of Inquiry into the Mitchelstown riots must be in the nature of a criminal inquiry, but this was not so in the case of Belfast.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman would find that there was an extraordinary resemblance between the circumstances of Mitchelstown and Belfast. At Belfast the police were driven back, just as they were alleged to have boon at Mitchelstown.

    519
    They then fired on the crowd, and lives were lost. Undoubtedly, if it had been found that the police at Belfast fired without good reason, they would have been subject to criminal proceedings. There was an identical resemblance between the two cases. It was quite true that an Act of Parliament would have to be passed in order to enable a Commission to be issued capable of taking sworn evidence. But he should have thought that, considering the importance of the subject, and its effect upon the public mind both in England and Ireland, it would have been worth while, even at this period of the Session, to have passed the necessary Act of Parliament. There were other inquiries, however, which might be held, and which did not require an Act of Parliament. In the case of the Belfast riots, for instance, Mr. Reed, the Inspector General of Constabulary, stated that before he learnt that a Commission of Inquiry was going to be instituted he intended to hold an investigation into the conduct of the police with regard to the firing from Boweshill barracks. He should have been glad to hear that, at all events, it was intended to hold this Departmental inquiry into the occurrences at Mitchelstown. It would be almost an intolerable thing that that House should separate in a matter of such great moment, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, representing the Irish Government, had to base the decision of the Government upon reports that came hurriedly from the police, unverified, unsifted, and uncriticized. Was that the position? Were they to suppose that, so far as the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was concerned, it was closed as to the firing that took place at Mitchelstown on Friday last? If so, it appeared to him (Mr. John Morley) that the right hon. Gentleman had brought himself, or the Government, into a very unfortunate position. That was not perhaps a great source of public regret to him (Mr. John Morley); he had no particular admiration or good wishes for the Government; but he thought that in the interests of good government in Ireland, which all of them desired, and that in the interests of the police themselves—a body against whom he had never said one single word, or ever
    520
    joined in the charges against them, and whom he had often defended—it was most important that there should be an inquiry, whether a Department inquiry or one of some other form that the right hon. Gentleman might devise that would satisfy the public mind that the action of the police on Friday last was not excessive. The right hon. Gentleman yesterday made an answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) which he evidently thought was quite conclusive. He said that the police at Mitchelstown were acting under the same instructions as during the time that the Government of 1880 was in Office. If that was so it was most unsatisfactory, for experience ought to have taught the Irish Executive that the police required special instructions for special occasions. When the Belfast riots broke out in June last year the first thing almost the Government did was to send a telegram to Belfast to the following effect:—
    "As it would appear that in some cases parties of Constabulary had to fire when Magistrates were not present to give orders, please instruct the officers to see, should this occur again, that such a serious step is taken only as a last extremity."
    He referred to that to show that the Government of the day did not rely on the old instructions, but sent special instructions Since then the Government had had plenty of time to consider the advisability of issuing new instructions to the police as to their duties in cases of riot. He would urge the Government to issue such special instructions, because the Government had to deal with very exceptional circumstances. They admitted that there was considerable excitement in Ireland, and therefore the probability of collisions of this kind. Under such circumstances he thought it would have been the duty of the Government to issue to Constabulary officers and Resident Magistrates instructions warning them of the consequences that had been realized at Mitchelstown, and urging upon them the necessity of caution. He wished to know were any special instructions sent to Mitchelstown; if not, the Administration was guilty of a grave dereliction of duty. In the course of his evidence given at Belfast, Mr. Reed strongly recommended that where firing had to take place it should be done by the military, and not by the police. He

    521
    himself had closely watched the course of the Belfast riots, and he had also come to the conclusion that it was most desirable to use the military alone where firing was necessary. There was a body of military at Mitchelstown, and he would like to know what they were doing all the time? Why was it that Mr. Reed's recommendation was not carried out? In conclusion he, would strongly urge upon the Government: first, that they should institute some kind of inquiry into the Mitchelstown occurrence such as would satisfy the public mind; and, secondly, that under the special circumstances of Ireland, and if occasions of the kind arose again, to send special instructions to the police against any excess in the discharge of their duty, and, also as to the way they should act.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. O'Brien) had told him, after the interview at Kingstown, that the police Inspector had informed him (Mr. O'Brien) that he would not be arrested until the following Monday if he promised not to go to England, but that if he would not promise he would be arrested at once.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: the Government intended to arrest the hon. Member (Mr. O'Brien) on Monday, and the reason they put the warrant into execution on Sunday was that they believed he was going to England.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Yet the light hon. Gentleman gave the House to understand that his hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo was perfectly wrong in stating that Mr. O'Brien would not be allowed to go to Parliament.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had denied that the hon. Member was asked to promise that he would not attend Parliament.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the right hon. Gentleman was playing with words.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Excuse me. The accusation made against me by the hon. Member for East Mayo was, that I had taken this course to prevent the hon. Member for North-East Cork making a speech in Parliament. That I denied. I pointed out that the question of Parliament had nothing to do with the matter. The question was whether the hon. Member for North-East Cork should be allowed to go to England or not.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he must leave the matter in the hands of the House, and he thought the impression on the mind of the House was quite different. However that might be, the hon. Member for East Mayo complained that his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien) had been put in prison as an untried prisoner until Friday week. The Chief Secretary had said that he could not be tried before. The Petty Sessions were held last Friday, and were adjourned until Thursday in this week, and surely his hon. Friend could be brought before that Court this week and tried.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he never mentioned the date, and never dwelt on the subject at all.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman correctly stated the law when he said the Court could not be called together till Friday in next week. The contention of the hon. Member for East Mayo was, that it was only right that the hon. Member for North-East Cork should be tried on Thursday, and that the trial should not be postponed until next week. When the hon. Member for East Mayo complained of the character of some of the witnesses to be produced in the pending trial at Mitchelstown, the Chief Secretary took him to task, saying that it was monstrous to prejudice justice in that way. But what did the right hon. Gentleman do himself? He entirely begged the question when he said that one of the witnesses had been severly injured, and was hovering between life and death, owing to the brutal violence of the mob. Was that not prejudicing justice? He (Mr. Labouchere) called it nothing else. The people whom the right hon. Gentleman was pleased to call a mob, holding as they were a legal meeting, had a perfect right to meet force with force. It was laid down by the highest authorities that, if a policeman exceeded his statutory right by law in an attack upon any individual, the individual might resist and oven kill him; but he did so at his risk and peril. If an individual was in peril of his life from a policeman by a weapon illegally directed against him, he might also kill that policeman. It had been laid down by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone' that the Government had no sort of right to come with a reporter to a meeting and force him there,

    523
    and if they did so, they did so at their own risk and peril, and the persons at the meeting had a perfect right to resist. If the police used their batons, the people had a right in self-defence to strike back. Having been at the meeting at Mitchelstown, he (Mr. Labouchere) rejoiced that the police were driven back by the people, and he maintained that whenever the Executive should attempt to violate the law in an equally outrageous manner, either in England or Ireland, the same resistance would be offered. The Government would not dare to do in England what they had done in Ireland. They were told they were not to have any sort of free and independent public investigation into the matter. The right hon. Gentleman admitted yesterday that he received the information he had read to the House from the police, which was a tainted source, from the persons who were incriminated, and yet he refused to allow any independent inquiry. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman himself did not invent these stories; but he (Mr. Labouchere) did assert that a more gross and impudent tissue of lies never was submitted to a Government before. The right hon. Gentleman received that report either from Resident Magistrate Seagrave or Constabulary Inspector Brownrigg. They lied grossly, and lied deliberately. He asserted last night that these men were murderers, and if they supplied the information to the Chief Secretary, they were liars as well as murderers. He did hope that there would be a fair and proper inquiry into this matter, and if there was an inquiry, he undertook that every fact he had stated should be proved. The Government might despise the Radicals; but he was sure the hon. Members for Northwich (Mr. Brunner) and Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis), who were present, were not to be supposed to come lightly to that House and state what was untrue; and he said that when three Members of that House deliberately stated that, to the best of their opinion, the deaths were caused by the action of the police, and the wrongful action of the police—when they asserted that the statement? made by the police were egregious and infamous fabrications—then he maintained the proper course would be to have a fair and independent investigation into the
    524
    matter. He and his Friends made their assertions on primâ facie evidence which might be rebutted: and all they said was that a primâ facie case had been made out for an independent and public investigation. That independent and public investigation they claimed at the hands of the Government as a right. The Government might refuse it. They had a majority in that House which enabled them to do what they pleased. But those with him would appeal to a very different Court. They would appeal to the people of England. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh. They nattered themselves that five years would elapse before the people of England had a chance of treating them as they deserved. But it might come sooner than they supposed, and they might depend upon this, that when the English people understood these attacks upon public meetings in Ireland, and that this was done under the Common Law of England and of Ireland, and not by any special enactment in regard to Ireland, they would look very seriously upon this question. They would ask themselves whether a Government was to be maintained in power, or a law to exist, which gave them such powers that peaceful people who went to meetings might find themselves killed by the police, or batoned and bludgeoned by the police. There was good reason for mitigating the severity of the prison treatment of political prisoners, although the right hon. Gentleman could not see any difference between the action of the hon. Member for North-East Cork as a political criminal and that of any ordinary criminal. There was this difference—that if the right hon. Gentleman happened to meet that hon. Gentleman abroad he would not refuse to associate with him. He would not think he had acted in a manner so dishonourable and mean that he was not fit for the society of honourable men. Yet he said he did not think the hon. Member for North-East Cork ought to be treated in a different way from anyone who had been sent on his trial for a bonâ fide criminal offence. Our conduct in regard to the treatment of political prisoners was a disgrace to the country. In no other country were they so treated. Take France, Austria, Russia, if they liked, and they would not find political criminals treated in the manner we treated them, for a distinction was

    525
    drawn between ordinary and political prisoners. [Laughter.] [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Worse.] He bad not followed the erratic course of the noble Lord. Perhaps he had bean a political prisoner in some foreign country himself. Even in Russia, political prisoners wore treated more leniently than here. ["Oh!"] He had recently been reading the life of a prisoner arrested for participation in the quasi-revolution that occurred when the Emperor Nicholas came to the throne. From that it appeared that the prisoners were kept in close confinement; but they were given plenty to eat and books to read, and they were not put upon plank beds. Further confirmation of his general statement was supplied in the experiences of Silvio Pellico. If the noble Lord, as a boy, read the adventures of Silvio Pellico, he would find political prisoners were not treated as ordinary criminals. The strong point of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian in calling attention to political prisoners under King Bomba was that they were treated as ordinary criminals. Surely, the Chief Secretary might order that political prisoners in Ireland should be given books to read, and if they were to have hard labour, it might be lighter labour than that of those who were able to bear it better than themselves. They might also have sufficient to eat. During the first month prisoners were given hardly anything to eat, but they were given more in the second month than in the first; and he would suggest that the hardship would be less if the plan were reversed, and if the supply of food were reduced in the second month rather than in the first. He did not ask for any species of luxury or comfort, but only that no degradation should be put upon political prisoners—that they should not be called upon to wear the prison dross, that they should not he upon plank beds, and that they should be allowed to have books to read. What he asked had been conceded by most of the despotic Governments on the Continent, and therefore it could not be very much to ask of the Constitutional Government of Great Britain. It was said that if this concession were made, those who incited to crime would be treated in one way and their miserable victims would be treated in another way—that more consideration would be shown to the
    526
    hon. Member for North-East Cork than to those who were put in prison for doing what he suggested; but that was begging the whole question that what that hon. Gentleman recommended them to do was in itself a crime. They denied that it was crime; they contended that when liberty was outraged it was the right and the duty of citizens to defend it. He did hope, in conclusion, that there would be some sort of inquiry, and that he and his hon. Friends were not to be stigmatised as three notorious liars.
    MR PARNELL: Mr. Speaker—the last word—and scarcely the first word—the House may rest assured, has not been heard upon this question of the treatment of political opponents in Ireland. I think nothing reflects more discredit upon the government of Ireland by this House than the treatment of political prisoners. From time to time, while there had been political prisoners in large numbers, we have invariably heard exactly the same accounts, the same stereotyped excuses by the Government officers as those which have been made to-night, and upon other evenings during this Session when the matter was brought forward. We are told that these men, if not criminal themselves, that they incite to acts of criminality, that they are convicted under a law which has been passed by Parliament, that Parliament thought proper to make no difference in their treatment, and consequently that it was not now for the Government to interfere. All I can say is, if it is not for the Government to interfere, it is so very much the worse for the Government, and for the right hon. Gentleman who is primarily responsible, if they cannot now interfere, because they closed the mouth of those who would have shown the necessity for interference when the Crimes Act was being passed by Parliament. This law was passed by Parliament under circumstances which compelled silence on the part of the Opposition. We were not permitted to plead the cause of the future political prisoners under this Act, and now we are to be told to-day, in view of this fact, that it is a sufficient excuse for the Government that Parliament has done what it has done, and that the Government can now do nothing more. Nothing, I think, excites more indignation in Ireland—and I

    527
    think you will be bound to admit it when your more sober moments come—nothing excites more feeling in the House of Commons than the recital of the treatment of the Fenian prisoners in 1887 and subsequent years. These men were convicted under the ordinary law of the land by an Irish jury, selected under the ordinary system—not specially packed, not specially selected for the purpose of convictions, but under the Act which bad previously existed before these offences were thought of or committed. Those prisoners were tried, and they were sentenced by a jury of their own countrymen, some to penal servitude for life, and some to penal servitude for a long term. What was the result? Owing to their barbarous treatment in prison, the Devonshire Commission was instituted. That Devonshire Commission recommended certain reforms in prison treatment, and those reforms were, I believe, subsequently carried out. It was admitted that such men as O'Donovan Rossa, whom you have turned into a dynamiter by the cruel treatment he received in Chatham Prison, and that such men as Luby, who was also imprisoned in Chatham, and other prisoners, should not be treated as you treat ordinary thieves, your murderers, your wife-beaters, and those who commit other crimes. Some modification in their treatment was recommended by the Devonshire Commission, and it was carried out. Well, following upon that, when the Prisons Act of 1877 came under discussion, we brought before the attention of the Conservative Government of the day the necessity for treating untried political prisoners in a different manner, and with more consideration than had hitherto been accorded them; and in consequence a considerable modification was inserted in the Act. There was also a modification regarding the treatment of persons convicted of sedition and of seditious libel. The Legislature then decided that persons convicted of precisely the same offence as that of which the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. William O'Brien) was now to be tried before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under another name were entitled, when convicted of sedition or seditious libel, to the treatment of first-class misdemeanants. We obtained other modifications, and I am bound to say that
    528
    the House of Commons—the large majority of which then consisted of Conservative Members—attended to them, and did do something to prevent the fair name of England being sullied in reference to this question of the treatment of political prisoners Well, then came the Coercion Act of 1881, and under that Act, as everybody knows, persons could be arrested in Ireland, and during the duration of the Act, without trial. The then Chief Secretary—the late Mr. Forster—to his honour be it said, undertook to see that the persons so treated were treated under rules expressly framed for the purpose. His treatment of those persons was characterized by distinguished humanity. They were persons who were not to be tried—they were not accused of any offence; they were arrested under what was practically suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and it was felt that they could not be treated in the same way as ordinary prisoners. Now, I believe that that is one of the reasons why the Government of the day have chosen the summary jurisdiction method of dealing with their political opponents, rather than the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act; because under the summary jurisdiction method you can inflict upon political opponents imprisonment with hard labour, plank bed, semi-starvation, and the torture of solitary confinement, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was afraid that the comparatively lenient treatment which he would be compelled to give untried prisoners under the Habeas Corpus Act would not have struck sufficient terror into the hearts of political opponents, and that that would not bring about the results which he hopes to see brought about, but in which, I venture to say, he will be disappointed. We are in this position—persons will be arrested for the same class of offences as under Mr. Forster's Act, and will not be treated as he treated them, but will be put on plank beds, will have 16 ounces of bread a-day, with water, and a few ounces of gruel; and if they fail in their allotted task to pick so much oakum, or raise a certain number of pounds so many feet high in a given number of hours, or fail at the treadmill, then they will be put in dark cells and kept on bread and water for long periods. That, I maintain, is barbarous treatment.

    529
    It is treatment that, if it be long continued, will result in the death of some I of the victims. It is monstrous to expert that a man like the hon. Member for North-East Cork, a scholar and a man of letters, could pick oakum, lift weights, or do hard physical work; he could not do it, he knew he could not do it, and therefore, rather than attempt a task in which he knew he must break down, he would decline beforehand to begin it, so that he would be punished at once for refusing, and his imprisonment would be one long punishment in a dark cell upon bread and water. That is a very serious situation. It is all very well to suppose that these things may not obtain publicity for a while, and that the Government may escape the lash of public opinion while their victims are pining away. But sooner or later prisoners must come out, or, if they die, inquests must be held. Will the position of the Government be any better then? Will they in this way obtain the sympathy and respect of the Irish, people and range them on the side of law and order? Will Irishmen be brought by those means into sympathetic union with Englishmen? Is that the way to restore law and order? They have tried that sort thing for a great many centuries. The result has been a failure. They found Ireland, by the admission of the Government themselves and by their own statistics, free from crime. Will they leave it so? Will the recital of their brutal and cowardly punishment of men whom Ireland justly regards as its leaders—self-sacrificing leaders—will the recital of slow tortures on those men make the Irish people tolerate them more than they do now? Do the Government suppose that by what they are doing they are not sowing strife and encouraging secret societies, perhaps to take the life of Government officials and to the revival of the horrors of the Invincible period? I say deliberately that if they proceed on in that course, the results will be on their own heads. They talk of inciting to crime. They say that the hon. Member for North-East Cork incites to crime, and that, therefore, he is to be treated as the person who commits crime is treated. And it comes to this, that persons who incite to any of the offences mentioned in the Act are to be treated as criminals. I say that such persons are political offenders, and
    530
    are not criminals. You cannot make such persons criminals by the mere passing of an Act of Parliament. Public opinion will not sanction the treatment of the hon. Member as a criminal. You can go no surer way to disgust the public opinion of the country, and I know of nothing that will be more unpopular in the constituencies than to treat a political antagonist as if he were a common criminal. I believe that the hon. Member for North-East Cork, in the spirit of a martyr, will welcome the sufferings and the tortures that are to be inflicted upon his weak and enfeebled frame, because he knows that he is doing a service to his country and his cause, because he knows, and the people of this country will see, that the ordinary criminal law of this country is not directed against criminals, but against political offences and political offenders. [Ironical Cheers.] Well, I know I am speaking to callous ears—[An hon. MEMBER—No!]—so far as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is concerned. He is determined to be unique. He is going to cut out a model for himself, and if he is not going down to posterity in any other shape, he is determined to go down in an original shape. He is going to trample on all the principles which have guided his Predecessors in Office. Mr. Forster treated his political opponents in a very different fashion; but the right hon. Gentleman is going to treat them as they treat garroters. The right hon. Gentleman thinks he will perhaps be disgraced if he cannot intimidate the defenders of Irish freedom—the Irish champions. But he will find, if he cannot intimidate these men, that he has face to face with him men who are maintaining their position not for the purpose of maintaining their Office and their salary, or keeping their Party in Office, but for the purpose of freeing their country—men who have, I hope, as much fibre as the right hon. Gentleman has, and as much courage at least, and who have some respect for the rights of human beings—men as entitled to live and breathe as himself. They have this short cut to the Government of Ireland. "Put your political opponents into gaol. Give them plank beds and little food until they die, or are broken, and can give no further trouble." That is the special receipt of the right hon. Gentleman. "Send the police to public

    531
    meeting's to baton and shoot down the people." That is the next step. The Irish Government has been invited by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) to commit murder, because, as he said, the Irish Government is omnipotent. It is omnipotent, like any other murderer, because it is able to do it; and even the noble Lord has to admit that the Government can be put on its trial like any other murderer. That is the situation in Ireland. That is the situation which the Government have deliberately constructed. That is the position as the winter approaches, and it will take a bold man to declare the issue. Now, I wish to turn the attention of the House for a moment to the question of the affair at Mitchelstown. The Government pleaded that it was necessary for them to have a shorthand writer at the meeting. I do not traverse that necessity—it is one of the necessities of your system of governing Ireland that you are compelled to have a Government shorthand writer at all public meetings in that country. From the commencement of the Land Movement in 1879 I have never objected to the presence of a shorthand writer at them, and the promoters of all public meetings in Ireland have offered every accommodation to such shorthand writers, and it has grown into an established custom, where the presence of a shorthand writer is desired by the Government, that the Local Authorities should give notice to the promoters of the meeting, that such was the case, and in that case every accommodation has always been afforded. Now, the right hon. Gentleman when he was asked why he did not carry out the system which was always carried out by his Predecessors in this respect, said it was not for the Government of the day to go hat in hand to persons whom they suspected were about to commit crimes in their speeches and ask them to protect the Government reporter. It is not a question of protecting the Government reporter, because no Government reporter has ever been molested in the discharge of his duty at any of the thousand and odd meetings held in that country.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said was that I regarded it as a monstrous proposition that it should be considered to be a necessary preliminary for the
    532
    Government reporter to be present at a meeting, that the leave of the promoters of the meeting, whose conduct might subsequently form the subject of judicial inquiry, should be asked.
    MR. PARNELL: But it was not a necessary precedent that the leave of the promoters should be asked. What has been the universal custom—under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, too—up to the time of the Mitchelstown affair, has been that the Local Authorities have given notice to the promoters of the meeting that they desired the attendance of a Government reporter on the platform. That is a very different thing from asking permission of the promoters of the meeting; and what reason has the right hon. Gentleman put forward for that departure from the ordinary track, which, has resulted in the tragic occurrence at Mitchelstown? He has put forward no reason at all. In the first place, we have a custom sanctioned by precedent—by universal usage—not only by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but by his Predecessors in Office also, and that is that the promoters of a meeting should be notified that the Government desire the attendance of a Government reporter on the platform. Well, in this case that was neglected. But, having neglected this step, they sent the Government reporter to the platform before the meeting commenced. The right hon. Gentleman says there was no platform—that the platform consisted of waggonettes, which might have been drawn away. But the platform was there. The waggonettes, having had the horses taken out of them, were the platform, and it was known that around these waggonettes the meeting would be held. That step was also neglected on the part of the Government. They did not apply, as is the usual case, that accommodation should be given on the platform to the Government reporter; neither did they secure that the Government reporter should be in the neighbourhood of the platform in time. They waited until the meeting was assembled, and they sent their reporter, surrounded by police, in order to force a way through the closely packed crowd. This was a task which it was physically impossible to accomplish without the employment of a great force. The consequence was that there was great pushing

    533
    and shoving. A third course was open to thorn—they failed to ask for accommodation on the platform—they failed to send their reporter in time, but they might have gone round to the rear of the meeting or to the side. Why did they choose the densest and thickest part of the crowd for the entrance of the Government reporter? Why was this particular part of the crowd, surrounded as it was by horses and carriages, chosen for the way of the Government reporter? When they found they could not get through, what was the next step? Instead of sending word even at the eleventh hour to the chairman of the meeting, which might easily have been done, that they desired that a way might be made for the reporter, they sent a large force of men to push their way through the meeting. Of course, the people resisted being pushed by rifles and batons, and resisted, most properly, in my opinion. It would have been more than you could have expected from ordinary humanity, when they were attacked by the rude thrusting of rifles and bayonets into their faces, and the blows of batons that they should not have struck back with the switches and sticks in their hands. Then came the retreat of the police, who showed themselves to be the cowards they are. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yea, I say cowards—[Opposition cheers]—yes, I repeat, cowards as they are. It was cowardly for 50 trained and disciplined policemen to fly from the same number of peasants. These are the cowards whom you get to serve you in Ireland by giving them treble the amount of ordinary wage that they would earn by honest labour to do your dirty work. These men did show themselves wretched cowards. I should like to see 50 London policemen running away from 50 civilians, or from 500, or from 5,000. I suppose the Tipperary peasants are not so very much superior to the London people in physical strength as to account for the discrepancy. But your Royal Irish Constabulary did run away. They ran away and got into the barracks; and what happened after the police got inside their barracks has been graphically described by the hon. Member for East Mayo. They rushed for their rifles, and fired out of the windows in their panic upon persons who had not been taking any part in the riot at all. They fired without waiting for the Riot
    534
    Act to be read, and without waiting for the orders of their officers. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has attempted to show that the police fired to cover the retreat of their wounded comrades. The only account of wounded comrades that can be given relates to one constable who crawled in some time after the main body of constables had escaped from the people. If this one wounded constable was able to crawl to the barracks through "a furious mob," I think it pretty clear proof that there was no "furious mob" at all. We have asked that there should be a sworn inquiry into this matter, and the request has been refused. The Government are determined to cloak the conduct of the Constabulary just as they are determined to ill-treat their political opponents, to torture them, to starve them, to kill them off to murder them; so they are determined that their police shall be allowed to murder the people assembled in lawful meetings. Not only that, but the police are to be incited by the manner and matter of their defence set up in the House of Commons by responsible Government Ministers to repeat these atrocious acts. And so the reign of murder is to be installed—the reign of torture in the prisons and the reign of murder outside. Instead of conceding to Ireland the right to manage her own affairs you have taken her by the throat, and you are going to try to strangle her. I wish the right hon. Gentleman well through his job. I confess I should not like to be in the shoes of the man who has entered upon this work with a light heart. He may have a big majority behind him in this House, but it is difficult to continue coercion against a nation. If you (the Government) had any large portion of the people of Ireland on your side, if you were able to say that the people were in the wrong and that you were in the right, it might be different. But you got elected under false pretences, by false representations to the constituencies. You came to Ireland, and you find the people peaceable and law-abiding. What are you going to do? You are doing your best to drive her to despair, to prevent and render useless the exertions of those men who have been continually preaching to the Irish people the necessity and the duty of self-restraint and obedience to

    535
    the law. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Who says "Oh?" Do those hon. Gentlemen know what they are talking about? I say, Sir, that the Government are doing their best to render useless the exertions of those who have been continually exhorting the Irish people to obedience to the law so as to avoid throwing any stain upon their splendid prospects. It is, of course, to your interest that the Irish people should break the law; but I hope and trust from the bottom of my heart that they will disregard these incitements. If there is anything that gives me uneasiness at the present moment it is not the belief that your cruel system of coercion will have any effect upon the hearts and minds of the Irish people—it is not that I believe that this Government will effect any lodgment as a real Government in Ireland in a matter where their Predecessors have so often failed before them, but it is because I fear that some misguided men either in Ireland or in America may be so excited and exasperated by the cruelties and sufferings inflicted on the Irish people that they may be carried away into rebellion by a spirit of retaliation and a spirit of revenge. If that should happen, Mr. Speaker, I believe it would put back—and I desire to take this opportunity of expressing my opinion—the cause of Ireland for many years, perhaps for longer than the lives of many of us present—and nothing could so help the Government as returning the same coin to them as they dealt out to us. Nothing can so advance the Irish cause in my judgment as patient endurance of wrong and suffering and injustice. The people of Ireland believe that they may have to endure only for a little while—that this Government will not always exist, perhaps not for many days. It will soon come to an end, as other bad Governments have done. The Irish people will, depend upon it, be richly rewarded for their patient endurance in this matter; and if there be any Irishmen into whose minds the spirit of revenge is entering, spurred on by the incitements of the Government, I would earnestly ask them to give us a trial—to give the present Constitutional movement of the Irish people a trial—for a few years, and I am convinced that the result of that trial will be to show that the confidence of the great majority of the Irish people in Constitutional action which is
    536
    being newly born in them by the extension of the suffrage to the masses of Ireland will be fully justified by the results. In a very short time the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) will be able, at the head of a majority of British Members, to do justice to Ireland by giving them that power and right of doing justice for themselves to themselves in a Legislature elected by Irishmen and of making just laws for her people.
    MR. BROOKFIELDsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Government to the desirability of establishing a Ministry of Agriculture.
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can connect the subject of a Minister of Agriculture in any way with the Appropriation Bill.
    MR. BROOKFIELDsaid, he understood that the discussion of almost any subject was allowable as long as it was connected with a Vote included in this Bill. He thought that the salary of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was included.
    MR. SPEAKER: The remarks of the hon. Gentleman have not any connection with any Department.
    MR. BROOKFIELDsaid, that, under the circumstances, he would defer his remarks until some other occasion.
    MR. T. P. GILLsaid, he desired to invite the House to once more direct its attention to the recent occurrences at Mitchelstown. He thought sufficient stress had not been laid on the fact that every independent non-Irish witness—English and Scotch—of the proceedings at Mitchelstown agreed in corroborating in substance, the statements laid before the House by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), to the accuracy of which he (Mr. T. P. Gill) could testify from personal observation. He had himself seen the police attack the mounted men on the outskirts of the meeting, and deliberately hammer them with their batons. This was the commencement of the engagement between the people and the Constabulary. The three English ladies who had witnessed the whole affair had signed a statement, in which they expressed their belief that if the police had not exceeded their duty in an unwarrantable manner—having regard to the peaceableness and goodwill of the

    537
    people—the terrible consequences which resulted would not have ensued. The statements of the police, which had been repeated in that House, were lies and perjuries; but he would not appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to grant an inquiry into the matter, because he should consider it insulting to himself to do so in view of the want of humanity and want of recognition of the common principles of justice shown by the right hon. Gentleman throughout the debate.
    MR. C. W. GRAYsaid, it was absolutely necessary that before the House again voted money for carrying on the administration of the country, something should be done in reference to the present condition of agriculture.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Earlier in the day I was asked whether it would be regular to discuss the question of agriculture on the Appropriation Bill, and I ruled that that question was outside the scope of that Bill.
    MR. C. W. GRAYsaid, he was not going to raise the question of agriculture. He merely wished to express his opinion that, until circumstances very much altered, the landed interest could not possibly afford to pay the large sums of money it had been paying in the past.
    MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he rose to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to grant a judicial inquiry into the deplorable events which had taken place at Mitchelstown. He also wished to endorse the evidence given on the previous night by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) with regard to those events. When the hon. Member for East Mayo was addressing that meeting he was addressing as orderly a meeting as he himself had ever seen in England or Wales, until the police marched up and batoned the horses of the farmers. The actions and words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and of the Irish Government were not such as were likely to tend in the direction of making the two nations a united people, but wore more likely to burn into the minds of the people of Ireland the conviction that they could get neither truth, justice, nor fair play from the English Government.
    MR. TUITEsaid, he desired to call attention to the prosecution of 17 persons in Westmeath under the Crimes Act. He observed that the summonses had boon served without any consultation with Dublin Castle, and on the same evening the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) had known nothing about it in that House. For his own part, he considered that that was a reckless way of administering a Coercion Act, and contrary to the promises which they had received from the Government with regard to it. These men were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment on most insufficient evidence. There were no stones thrown and no violence towards the police, and Mr. Hayden—the brother of the hon. Member for South Leitrim—one of those who had been sentenced to imprisonment, busied himself greatly to quiet the people. The prosecution was a most despotic one. He felt bound to denounce the conduct of the Resident Magistrates and the Constabulary, and expressed a hope that in future prosecutions under the Crimes Act, no proceedings should be taken against accused or suspected persons unless with the direct sanction and approval of the Attorney General for Ireland.
    MR. HAYDENsaid, that the defendants had been sentenced to three months' imprisonment for what was described as resisting the police at an eviction. It was admitted that there was no disturbance; and if so heavy a sentence was passed if so trifling a case, what would be done when some really serious offence was committed under the Coercion Act? That, however, was not everything, for the defendants would not have been convicted at all if the magistrates had not disregarded the only unbiased evidence, and acted on that of perjured witnesses. The law would be brought into still greater contempt and disrespect by the despotic action of the Government. It would make the people stand more closely and firmly together in defence of their rights and liberties, and landlords would have greater difficulty in securing their rack rents.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, he wished to protest against the dangerous doctrines laid, down by

    539
    the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) on the previous evening with reference to the powers of the Executive Government, and that the people existed for the Government and not the Government for the people. He feared it would turn out that the police were the cause of the riots at Mitchelstown. The firing upon the people could not be justified, and the responsibility for loss of blood must rest upon the Irish Government. Great injustice was often done in the name of law, and although he did not care about introducing sacred subjects into the discussion of the House, he reminded them that the founder of Christianity was murdered in the name of the law.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIENsaid, he thought there was no doubt that the object of the police at Mitchelstown was to provoke and exasperate the people. If the people were brutally-treated by the police he feared there would be reprisals on the part of the people. He supposed this was the beginning of that 20 years of firm government which Lord Salisbury thought all that was required. Of course the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland might have made up his mind to carry out that 20 years of firm government, but he doubted whether the people of this country would give the right hon. Gentleman rope enough to do so.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENSES) BILL.— [BILL 361.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Long.)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENSES) BILL.— [BILL 361.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that in Committee, he proposed to move to strike out that part of the Bill which referred to the expenses of the Inspectors in connection with local inquiries. He did not think that it would be wise
    540
    to proceed with that provision at the present time, before the Local Authorities had had time to consider the question.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee, and reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Friday next at a quarter to Two o'clock."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that he misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's Motion. Anyhow, it was now too late for him (Colonel Nolan) to proceed with his Tram and Claremorris Railway Bill. Between the Government and his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) they had destroyed his Bill, and he was now compelled to give way.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House at its rising to adjourn till Friday.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Jackson)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Eight o'clock till Friday.

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Lord Chaworth (Earl of Meath), after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) *; Local Authorities (Expenses) * (270).
Second Reading—Women's Suffrage (No. 2) (236), negatived.
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading—Bankruptcy (Discharge and Closure) * (261); Expiring Laws Con-

457
tinuance * (263); Local Government (Boundaries) * (259); Prisons (Officers' Superannuation) (Scotland) * (264); Superannuation Acts Amendment* (262); Technical Schools) (Scotland)* (260), and passed.
Third Reading—Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous) * (257), and passed.

TECHNICAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 260.)
(The Marquess of Lothian.)
TECHNICAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 260.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN),in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he felt some explanation was due to their Lordships for bringing on a measure of this importance so late in the Session. At an earlier date, the Government intended to proceed with a Bill of a similar nature for England, and when mention was made of it, as their Lordships were aware, a general desire was expressed that there should be a Bill for Scotland, with the result that at his (the Marquess of Lothian's) request, this Bill had been introduced into the House of Commons by the Lord Advocate. The English Bill had been withdrawn; but that for Scotland met with such general acceptance that it was hoped it might be possible to carry it through this Session. And there was a strong reason why it should be carried this Session. It had, of course, passed the House of Commons; but though every endeavour had been made to push it forward with the least possible delay, the Bill had not passed the third reading in that House until Friday last, and consequently could not come before their Lordships at a Sitting earlier than the present. He regretted that all the more because he thought the Bill was preeminently one of those measures that was sure to meet with that discussion and criticism which their Lordships' House was so fitted to give, and which might lead to such amendment as would give it increased efficacy and value. Their Lordships might ask why they had pressed on with the Scottish Bill under these circumstances, when they had postponed the English Bill? Well, in answer to such a question, he could only say that the position of Scotland was distinct, and it differed from England in
  458
  the matter of the election of school boards. In Scotland the election of school boards was triennial, and one of these triennial elections took place next spring between March and June. One of the provisions in this Bill was, that any resolution for the establishment of a technical school must take place before the election of a school board; therefore, if the Bill had been postponed till next Session, it would practically prevent the Bill coming into operation for three years, while, under the system in England, the English Bill might be in operation before the close of next year. Such a postponement in the case of Scotland, he would very much have deprecated, because it would have been the postponement of a measure which, he believed, would be of great advantage to that country, and, under these circumstances, he had no alternative but to ask their Lordships to give the Bill a second reading now. The object of the Bill was to facilitate the establishment and maintenance of technical schools in Scotland by giving additional facilities to school boards to provide technical education to those attending board schools. The object of technical education, or, as he preferred to call it, handiwork education, was to educate together the mental and the physical powers of the young. He liked the term "handiwork" education, because "technical" education had come to mean, in the minds of most people, some special education not in the regular standards of the school work curriculum; while handiwork education pointed to this, that those for whom the school boards were in existence should, while getting their mental education, learn also how I to make use of their hands in such a way as should be useful to them in after life. The Bill had undergone considerable modifications since its introduction; but he did not intend to ask their Lordships to make alterations in Committee upon it, as most of the Amendments accepted by the Government had been submitted to him, and had met with his approval.
  LORD LINGENasked, whether a school board was limited under Clause 3 to instituting only one technical school in its district?
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN,in reply, said, that that clause provided for only one. It was impossible, he might say,

  459
  in conclusion, to forecast the advantages which a Bill of this kind might produce. It would probably put a final stop to the old apprenticeship system; but that system, was already dying out, and it was possibly in consequence of that fact that this Bill had been found necessary, in order to supply the thorough training which the apprenticeship system was calculated to impart. He felt certain that the Bill would receive the general acceptance of the people of Scotland, and even as it stood, and even if it did not become necessary to add to it hereafter, it was a measure which he was convinced would do a great deal of good.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  LORD LINGENsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Bill, with the object of which he entirely sympathized. It was a measure of the greatest importance, as being the first of its kind in the United Kingdom; and he could not but regret that Her Majesty's Government had not postponed it, as they might have done, together with the English, one, without serious delay, inasmuch as he believed the election of the new school boards in Scotland would not take effect before April next. They would thus have had the remainder of the Recess to consider the principles of the Bill, and the Bill might have been pushed through as quickly as possible after Parliament re-assembled, if necessary. He thought the Bill involved considerations and principles of great difficulty, which might hereafter cause considerable embarrassment. For instance, the working of it would practically be in the hands of the Science and Art Department at Kensington, and the relations of that body to the Scottish Education Department appeared to him to be left in a very indeterminate form in the Bill. He found that the Scottish Education Department was confined to the regulation of the procedure of the school boards, and the regulation of those subjects of instruction which could not be subjects of grants. Now, he need not say that those were exactly the subjects which would have nothing to do with technical schools qua technical schools. It came, therefore, to this, that these schools were so largely entrusted to the Department at South Kensington as to be practically taken away from the Scottish Education
  460
  Department. That appeared to him to be the effect of the Bill, so far as he had been able to study it; and he thought it was one of those measures which it was peculiarly unfortunate should be included in the "rush" which was usual at the end of a Session. There were other considerations, such as the question of the maintenance of those schools, which made it very desirable that such a Bill should be thoroughly discussed; and though he was aware that his remarks would lead to no practical conclusion, yet he had thought it desirable to place these considerations before their Lordships.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that if he had thought it was possible, without disadvantage, to postpone the Bill till another Session, he would have done so; but, as he had already pointed out, to have done so would have been practically to postpone the Bill for three years. It would have been impossible to pass the Bill through all its stages in both Houses in time for April elections next year. As to the remark made by the noble Lord (Lord Lingen) that the control would rest with the Science and Art Department, he thought the noble Lord would see that the ultimate decision practically rested with the Scotch Education Department; and, indeed, the whole object of the Bill was as far as possible to throw the responsibility upon the Scotch Education Department. They would find that in one clause of the Bill it was provided that the subjects to be taught in these schools were to be such as were approved by the Scotch Education Department, and in Clause 6 it was provided that the schools must be conducted in accordance with the conditions made by the Scotch Education Department and set forth in the Scotch Education Code. He could assure their Lordships that the great desire was that the Scotch Education Department should have the control of the whole educational system of Scotland, except the Universities, and should themselves be responsible for that education. He would like to correct the answer he formerly gave as to school boards having the power to institute only one school; because he found that the school board should fix the fees at each technical school under the management of the Board, which showed that there might be more than one such school under one Board.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)said, he wished to say that although there were doubts about the English Bill, the Scottish Bill had been received with so much satisfaction that the Government came to the conclusion that it would be wise to press it through this Session. He had taken the trouble to find out what was the opinion of the vast majority of the Scottish Members in the other House, and he found that the desire for the Bill was so unanimous that he could not take it upon himself not to accept the Bill as it was; and, looking to the good which might result from this Bill, he would strongly advise their Lordships now to pass it.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
  Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXV. having been dispensed with for the remainder of the Session) Bill read 3a, and passed.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE (No. 2) BILL.
(The Lord Denman.)
WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE (No. 2) BILL.

  (NO. 236.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Denman.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he must express his surprise that the noble Lord should have made this Motion, seeing that the noble Lord stated to the House, as recorded in Hansard, on the occasion when another Bill on the same subject was brought on, that he did not intend to proceed further with this Bill this Session, but would present it again next Session. It was, besides, distinctly against the Orders of the House a second time to introduce a Bill dealing with the same subject-matter as one already rejected during the same Session. He had looked into this and the earlier Bill, and he had found that they were undoubtedly of the same subject-matter; therefore, without in the least expressing any view either in favour of or against the subject-matter of the Bill, he asked their Lordships to reject it, not on its merits, but on the ground of the irregularity of introducing it a second time in the same Session.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.
  Ordered that the said Bill be rejected.

LAND JUDGES COURT, IRELAND.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  LORD ARDILAUN,who had on the Paper a Motion calling attention to the present position of the Land Judges' Court, Ireland, said, he feared that he might have to claim their Lordships' patience while he again went closely into this question with additional information and new cases of delays in the business of this Court; but he was glad to be relieved from the necessity of doing so, as the Government had now consented to grant the Return he asked for last month. He was also happy to be able to add that the Government and the Treasury had promised to adopt the suggestion he had urged upon them—namely, that they should at once give additional assistance in the preparation of title in this Court by strengthening the examiners' department. He had, therefore, only to move for the Return which stood in his name as an unopposed Return. The Return in question was intended to show in separate columns the number of petitions tiled during the last four years, the number of estates offered for sale each year, those in which the rentals were settled, and those in which receivers were appointed, the total number of receivers at present, and the number appointed each year, the number of accounts not lodged within the limit of time appointed, or where the time had not been extended, the number of six months' settlements of account each year, the number of yearly settlements, the gross annual rental under receivers, the gross amount collected each year, the number of officials attached to the Court and their salaries, and the number and salaries of those in the receivers' department.
  Moved for Return, as follows:—
  "Number of Petitions filed during last Four Years, divided into number each Year.
  "Number of Estates offered for Sale each Year during past Four Years.
  "Number of Estates in which the Rentals were settled each Year during past Four Years.
  "Number of Estates in which Receivers were appointed, divided into in each Year during past Four Years.
  "Total Number of Receivers now, and Number appointed each Year.
  "Number of Accounts not lodged within the limit of time appointed, or where time has not been extended, divided in each Year.
  "Number of Six Months Settlements of Account each Year.

  463
  "Number of Yearly Settlements.
  "Gross Annual Rental under Receivers for each Year.
  "Gross Amount collected each Year.
  "Number of Officials attached to Court and their Salaries.
  "Number and Salaries of those in Receiver's Department."—(The Lord Ardilaun.)
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.