Sitting of 6 December 1888

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 39 to 42; CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE, Vote 2.
Resolutions [December 5] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Preferential Payment of Wages (No. 2) * [381]; Sand Grouse Protection * [391].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks * [348], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—POISONING OF FOXHOUNDS.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to an account of a meeting held at Nurney, County Kildare, in The Freeman's Journal of November 12, in which the hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. Sheehy) is reported to have used these words—
  "He would say deliberately that the tenants had a perfect right to poison their lands against vermin;"
  whether, on November 24, nine of the Kildare foxhounds were poisoned on the high road near Sallins, in the same county; and, whether any persons have been made amenable for this offence?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE-LAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)(who replied), said, the Constabulary authorities report that the facts are substantially as stated in the first two paragraphs. No persons have been made amenable for the offence; but the police are still investigating the matter.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman had instructed himself as to the state of the law on the subject?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had gathered from the Report of the police that an offence had been committed.
  MR. SHEEHYasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether his attention had been called to a newspaper account of certain misconduct towards a
  1234
  farmer's wife, a Mrs. O'Neill, by some members of the Hunt?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had no information on that point.
  MR. PINKERTONasked whether it was not the constant practice of farmers in the North of Ireland to poison their lands?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was not aware of that.
  DR. TANNERasked, whether it was not a fact that if a man poisoned his lands, and gave the ordinary statutory notice, he was protected by law?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that, as the hon. Gentleman wished for information on a legal point, he must give Notice of the Question.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—ARKLOW HARBOUR.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he is aware that considerable damage has again occurred at Arklow Harbour by the floods in the river; and, if he will state how the cost of repairs is to be provided for?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I am informed that no damage whatever has occurred to the new pier at Arklow, either from floods in the river or from the sea. Some damage to the old harbour works was done during the violent gales which occurred last month. They are now being repaired by the Board of Works. The cost is defrayed out of money received from tolls, and a small balance left after completion of the new works.

  INLAND REVENUE—COLLECTOR OF TAXES AT TORQUAY—DEFAULT OF A TAX COLLECTOR.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNEasked the President of the Local Government Board, If it is proposed to inquire into the circumstances under which Pepprell, the missing tax collector at Torquay, succeeded in embezzling £3,900, a large part of which, owing to insufficient security, must be re-assessed on the ratepayers; and, what steps, if any, will be taken to ensure that Public Authorities shall for the future enforce Article 9 of the General Order of Accounts, which enjoins that every collector shall, every week, pay to

  1235
  the overseers' bankers all moneys in his hands whenever the amount exceeds £5?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)(who replied)said: Pepprell, the missing tax collector at Torquay, who embezzled £3,900, held the offices of collector of poor rates for the parish of Tormoham, and collector of rates of the Torquay Local Board. At present I have no precise information as to the circumstances under which the defalcations have occurred; but I propose to arrange that an audit of the accounts of the officer shall be held at an early date, and the facts will then be ascertained. The Article of the Order of Accounts, enjoining every collector to pay weekly to the overseers' bankers all moneys in his hands exceeding £5, applies to a collector of poor rates; and it is the duty of the auditor to report to the Local Government Board any case in which the requirements of that Article have not been complied with. In any such case it is the invariable practice of the Board to impress upon the officer the necessity for his strictly complying with the provisions of the Article; and, when it appears to be requisite, the Board bring the matter specially under the attention of the Local Authorities.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—TRIAL OF THE CHIEFS.
  MR. A. M' ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the fact that the tribunal constituted for the trial of the Zulu Chiefs was appointed by Sir Arthur Havelock, the Governor of Zulu-land; whether it is alleged, on the part of the Zulus, that the disturbances for which they are being tried arose out of the maladministration of the Government of Zululand; whether any objection has been taken to the appointment of the tribunal being made by Sir Arthur Havelock, and, if so, on what grounds; whether it is the fact that the summons to Undabuko to take his trial for treason was dated in Pietermaritz burg on October 29, and returnable in Zululand on November 15 at Ekowe, a distance of over 100 miles, 80 miles of which has to be travelled by road; and, is it the case that Undabuko's counsel, being refused necessary time for the
  1236
  preparation of the defence, declined to appear in the proceedings; and, if so, whether the refusal to grant time has resulted in the Zulu Chiefs being compelled to stand their trial for high treason without the assistance of the counsel selected by them?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The tribunal was appointed by Sir Arthur Havelock after communication with the Secretary of State. The allegation referred to in the second paragraph has been made. As far as the Secretary of State is aware, there is no foundation for the suggestion in the third paragraph. As to paragraph four, the summons appears to have been dated on or about October 29; but Undabuko had notice from the preliminary investigation, which commenced in September, of the nature of the charge and evidence. The Secretary of State telegraphed on the 3rd instant, strongly urging the adjournment of the trials of Undabuko, although already begun, and of Dinizulu for a month or six weeks. This morning he has received a reply that, in accordance with his request, the trial of Undabuko is adjourned for seven weeks; that Dinizulu is not yet committed for trial; but that his trial will also be postponed.
  DR. CLARKinquired whether it was not a fact that the Governor had entirely disapproved of the action taken by the Zulu Government in sending a force against Dinizulu?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I do not think that that arises out of the Question on the Paper; but I may answer in the negative.

  LICENSING LAWS—WOLVERHAMPTON LICENSING SESSIONS.
  MR. ALLISONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention had been called to a report of a case at the Licensing Sessions in Wolverhampton, at which it appeared that a licence was granted to a Mr. White for a house on land sold to him by the Corporation; that the Corporation had previously agreed to support the application for the said licence, and to give a pledge to the Bench that an old and inoperative licence should be destroyed, on consideration of the payment by Mr. White

  1237
  of £100 for such support; that, on the Bench granting such licence, were the Chairman and ex-Chairman of the Public Works Committee, which had recommended the Corporation to support the application, which was granted, notwithstanding it was strongly opposed by ratepayers and owners of property in the locality; and that a majority of the Bench granting such licence were members of the Corporation; and, whether, in the light of these facts, he is prepared to take any action with a view to the vindication of the law by which interested parties are legally ineligible to consider applications for licences?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed that such a licence was granted to Mr. White, and such an agreement was made by the Corporation; but it is not correct to say that an old and inoperative licence was to be destroyed. The licence was actually in existence, and had recently been renewed. The Bench considered that the opposition to the grant of a licence was outweighed by the Petitions, influentially and numerously signed, presented on behalf of the applicant. No objection was taken to the constitution of the Bench, either at the original grant or at the confirmation of the licence. Five members of the Corporation voted against the confirmation and three in its favour. The Chairman and ex-Chairman of the Works Committee were present at both hearings; but, as they had no beneficial interest in the premises, or the profits thereof, it does not seem to me that they were disqualified. If the hon. Member considers that they acted improperly the proper course for him is to make a representation to the Lord Chancellor on the subject.

  ARMY—RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE ROYAL ARTILLERY.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, What steps he intends taking for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of Lord Harris's Committee relative to the re-organization of the Royal Artillery; and, whether, if the recommendations are adopted, they will, in any way, disturb the existing distribution of garrison depots at Sunderland and other seaport towns?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): This is much too important a matter for me to be able to deal adequately with it in the form of an answer to a Question, nor, indeed, is it ripe for any statement on the subject. I cannot, therefore, yet say positively whether any, and, if so, which, seaports will be affected by the scheme that may be adopted; but the primary consideration upon which it will be based must be the efficiency of the Royal Artillery, and not the interest of any particular seaport.

  ARMY CONTRACTS—MANUFACTURE OF CAVALRY SWORDS AT SOLINGEN.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state to the House what number of Cavalry swords have recently been manufactured by a German firm at Solingen, and how many were accepted, and how many have been paid for, and at what price; how many have since been sent to Enfield Factory to be properly finished or repaired, what percentage of those already examined have there been rejected, and what percentage were there found unable to stand the Government test; whether alterations have been found necessary as to blades, grips, and hilts alike, and what (including the price paid for rejected swords with that of re-stiffening and other alterations) is the price of the swords when finally fit for issue; and, what is the name of the firm in question?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): 20,000 Cavalry swords have been manufactured by a German firm at Solingen, under a contract dated October, 1885. All have passed the test prescribed in the contract, and payment has been authorized at 20 s. each. None have been sent to Enfield for either alteration or repair. But, in consequence of the revelations respecting sword-bayonets last year, it was decided to expose these and other weapons to a second and much more severe test. Six thousand six hundred and thirty-five were so subjected at Enfield, the test being far in excess of that specified in the contract. I believe that 1,836 swords failed to pass the new test thus prescribed, and 635 more, which had been in the hands of the troops, were also unable to stand

  1239
  his test. A large proportion of those derived from other sources of supply, and not from this particular firm, also failed. I have since been advised that this experimental test was excessive, and calculated to injure weapons rather than sufficiently try them, and the requirements have been made less severe. The firm whose swords are referred to in this Question is Messrs. Weyersberg, Kirschbaum and Co., of Solingen.
  MR. HANBURY: Are there two different kinds of tests in operation, then?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Certainly not; there is only one.

  ARMY CONTRACTS—DEFECTIVE CAVALRY SWORDS.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that the German firm which supplied the defective Cavalry swords, now being re-stiffened and otherwise treated at Enfield, are closely associated with Messrs. Wilkinson, the contractors for the new bayonets; whether a higher price was given to Messrs. Wilkinson, as being English manufacturers, and to encourage sword and bayonet making in this country; whether, nevertheless, only a portion are being made in this country, and large quantities of bayonets are now being received at Messrs. Wilkinson's, and have for three weeks past been received, from Germany in a very advanced stage of manufacture; whether the number of Germans employed at Messrs. Wilkinson's bayonet works has during the last month actually increased, and not decreased; whether English machinery and English processes are principally employed; and, if so, what are the precise processes which the German workmen are teaching; how many of the Germans speak English, and how are themselves engaged upon piecework, and cannot spare time for, and are not paid for, giving such instruction; whether any application was made to the Superintendent or the Manager of Enfield Factory for spare skilled hands, to instruct Messrs. Wilkinson's workmen; whether skilled English workmen who did apply for work were offered by Messrs. Wilkinson only 5d. per hour, or two thirds only of the wages paid for such work at Enfield; when the first delivery of bayonets became due under the original and revised
  1240
  contracts respectively; and, what deliveries have actually taken place?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have already stated that the German firm did not supply defective swords. I understand that a member of that firm has joined Messrs. Wilkinson's firm. The contract was given to Messrs. Wilkinson for the sword-bayonets because they undertook to manufacture them in this country; and they might have been obtained from Solingen at a less price. No application was made to the Enfield Factory for instructors. The original contract was suspended for many months owing to changes of pattern. The real pattern was not supplied till August, nor the gauges till September last. Up to this time about 11,000 bayonet blades have been passed, and a delivery of 1,000 a-week is expected. The firm are not under obligation to give me information on the other points asked by my hon. Friend, and I have no means of answering; his Questions; but my noble Friend the Member for the Enfield Division (Viscount Folkestone) recently visited Messrs. Wilkinson's factory, and was shown all the details concerning it.
  MR. HANBURY: If I can produce the very men who unpacked, or who saw unpacked, these bayonets from Germany, tempered and finished in every way, will my right hon. Friend inquire into the matter?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have always said to my hon. Friend that if he would sometimes do me the favour to speak to me in private, I should be only too glad to remedy any grievances he might point out. I desire, equally with him, to expose any abuse; but I am not always sure that categorical explanations in this House are always the best means to adopt.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS)—COLLECTING EVIDENCE FOR THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Michael Healy and Mr. James O'Leary, of Killarney, when engaged recently in collecting facts about the Kenmare Estate, bearing on the evidence of Mr. Leonard before the

  1241
  Royal Commission, were followed by, interfered with, and finally arrested by the police; and, whether the notes they had made of the facts collected were seized and kept from them even when they were released; and, whether he will take steps to prevent police interference with persons engaged in collecting evidence material to the issues raised before the Royal Commission Court and useful to the Members of this House against whom accusations are made?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): As I stated in reply to a Question put two days ago on this subject by the hon. Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn), the persons referred to were arrested on a warrant, the first-named for obstructing and assaulting the police, and the second-named for inciting thereto. Some documents were found upon the persons referred to when arrested. One of these was a letter of an incriminatory character, and cannot be returned. Any other documents not incriminatory are being returned.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give us a guarantee that those who are making such inquiries for the purpose of meeting the accusations made against the Irish Members will not be interfered with when they are in pursuit of these inquiries?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, nobody will be interfered with. On the contrary, I should be glad to aid them.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that these men did anything else than make inquiries for the purpose of elucidating matters referred to by Mr. Leonard in the Parnell Commission?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that they were arrested for obstructing and assaulting the police.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Does it mean that the moment these persons left Killarney to verify the statements made by Mr. Leonard before the Commission they were followed into every house by policemen, who interposed themselves between these persons and the tenants of whom they wished to make inquiries; and that it was only in what I may characterize as just indignation that they eventually pushed the police out of the house where they were making these inquiries?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman wants any further information he must give Notice; but, certainly, these men were not interfered with by the police as far as their object was to investigate matters of fact.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Did not the police dog them from house to house while they were pursuing these investigations? And I would ask whether, in view of the statement by the First Lord of the Treasury that Irish officials are disposed to accord equal facilities to us with those which they afford to our accusers, is it right for the police to thus interfere with men who are endeavouring to ascertain the truth?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is rather begging the question. He is assuming that the police did interfere with an investigation which these men were making bonâ fide. That allegation I do not admit; but if the hon. Gentleman wishes for further detail, I am not able to give it without further Notice.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit or deny that the police followed these men from Killarney, and then from house to house?
  MR. CONYBEARE: Answer, answer!
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is unreasonable. I have given him all the information that I possess. If he wants more he must put a Question on the Paper.

  ECCLESIASTICAL LAW—BREAKING UP A VAULT IN HEMEL HEMPSTEAD CHURCH.
  MR. HALLEY STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that, in August last the family vault of Francis Combe, Esq., in Hemel Hempstead Church, was, without the knowledge of his descendants, broken into, and, after the leaden coffins therein had been removed and broken up, and the remains therein had been buried in the churchyard, the vault was deepened, and added to the family vault of Sir Astley Paston Cooper, Bart.; whether these proceedings took place with the consent of the vicar, the Rev. Dr. Robbing, and with the sanction of the Home Secretary, or of any ecclesiastical

  1243
  authority; and, whether he has received any representations on the subject; and, if so, whether he has ascertained who are responsible for this act, and what steps he is prepared to take in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I learn from the vicar that the vault of the Combe family was, with his consent, interfered with, and that he removed some pieces of battered lead and pieces of broken monuments, not belonging to the Combe family, which had been placed in the vault before the present vicar's time. No coffins appear to have been broken up by the vicar, or human remains removed to the churchyard. Coffins of the Cooper family were placed in the Combe vault. These proceedings were without the consent of the Bishop or the sanction of the Secretary of State, and were altogether irregular. The vicar informs me that he was in ignorance of the law relating to burials in a church and churchyard closed by Order in Council, and expressed great regret if he had done any anything contrary to law. I have written to the vicar, calling his attention to the existence of an Order in Council, regulating: burials in his church and churchyard, and requesting him to observe its provisions with regard to future burials in his parish. This is the only matter within my jurisdiction. The improper interference with a family vault is a matter wholly for the Bishop to deal with. I have no information to lead me to suppose that the coffins of the Cooper family were placed in another vault.

  CRIMINAL LAW—WILLIAM WADDLE INDICTED FOR MURDER—IMPROPER QUESTIONING BY CONSTABLES.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS(for Mr. PICKERSGILL)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in the course of the trial last week of William Waddle, on an indictment for wilful murder, upon which he was found guilty, a police constable admitted that he "closeted himself in the prisoner's cell for over an hour and asked him questions"; and, whether he will take any, and, if so, what, steps to stop the questioning of prisoners by the police?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr MATTHEWS): According to the notes of evidence the police constable stated that he was almost an hour in the cell with the prisoner, asking him questions. I will communicate with the learned Judge, and ask him whether it appeared at all before him that the police constable asked questions which he ought not to have asked, or other than were necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the prisoner's identity. If it turns out that this was the case, I will certainly take steps to mark my disapproval of such conduct.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—EXPEDITION FROM ACCRA TO THE INTERIOR.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that a Military Expedition, under Captain Lethbridge, has been despatched from Accra to the interior, to a place 14 days' journey beyond Bontokoo; and, if he can explain the objects of this Expedition?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): It is not true that a Military Expedition is going to the interior 14 days beyond Bontokoo. The facts are that Captain Lethbridge and another officer are going to visit Gaman to maintain those friendly relations with that State which resulted from the visit of Captain Lonsdale in 1882, as reported in Blue Book C. 3687. Similar Missions are of frequent occurrence, and the escort is solely for protection.

  TURKEY (ASIATIC PROVINCES)—THE CHRISTIANS IN KURDISTAN.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to a latter which appeared in The Globe newspaper of Saturday last, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any recent Correspondence with the Consulate at Van relating to the state of the Christians in Kurdistan?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No recent Reports have been received from the Vice Consulate at Van, as Mr. Russell, the previous Vice Consul, left on transfer early in

  1245
  September, and Mr. Devey, his successor, has only recently arrived. The latter will be directed to report on the recent occurrences. The attention of the Ottoman Government has been called to the matter; but, according to all accounts, the districts in question are now in a state of tranquillity.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888, SEC. 51—ELECTORAL DIVISIONS OF MONMOUTHSHIRE.
  MR. WARMINGTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that the magistrates of Monmouthshire in Quarter Sessions have, under "The Local Government Act, 1888," constituted an Electoral Division, called the Raglan Division, with a population a little over 2,000; another Division, called the Magor Division, with a population of about 2,300; another Division, called the Llanvihangel Division, with a population of about 2,200; whilst they have constituted another Division, called the Abergavenny Division, which has a population of 8,000; another Division, called the Rhymney Division, with a population of more than 8,600; another Division, called the Christchurch Division, with a population of more than 8,000; whether he is aware that similar inequalities are to be found in the constitution of the other Divisions of the same county, so that there are 12 Electoral Divisions, with an aggregate population, mainly rural, of 34,544, returning 12 members, and five Divisions (two sub-divided), with an aggregate population, mainly artizan and urban, of 54,363, returning only seven members to the County Council; and, whether the Local Government Board will take steps, if it be in their power, to secure compliance with the requirement of Section 51 of the Act, which directs that—
  "The Divisions shall be arranged with a view to the population of each Division being, so nearly as conveniently may be, equal."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)(who replied)said: The Local Government Board have been furnished with a statement as to the Electoral Divisions which have been constituted in Monmouthshire; but they are not in a position to state the facts
  1246
  as regards the population of the several Divisions. The Board have no information as to the considerations which influenced the Justices in constituting the Divisions; but I may observe that the Local Government Act directs that regard shall be had not only to population, but also to the other considerations specified in the provisions on this subject. The duty of constituting the Electoral Divisions devolves on the Court of Quarter Sessions under the Statute, and the Board could not undertake to review the decision at which they have arrived.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANasked, whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that in other Welsh counties—and notably in Denbighshire—inequalities as gross as, and even grosser than, that referred to had been sanctioned by the Quarter Sessions of such counties acting under the powers of the Local Government Act, 1888?
  MR. WARMINGTONasked, whether there was any power to compel the Court of Quarter Sessions to comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Act?
  MR. LONG: The limits of the Statute are extremely wide; and a particular Amendment, introduced not at the instance of the Government, but by hon. Gentlemen opposite, has enabled the Quarter Sessions to take these departures, which otherwise they could not have taken. They are called upon by Statute to take into consideration local peculiarities, &c. The provisions of the Statute are so wide that it would be extremely difficult to prove that the requirements had not been observed.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: Does the House understand that, whatever injustice may be committed by the Quarter Sessions in constituting the Electoral Divisions, there is no redress whatever?
  MR. LONG: The hon. Gentleman took a prominent part in the Committee on the Bill, and this power was fully considered. It was decided to leave absolute discretion in these matters to the Courts of Quarter Sessions, and with this decision the Executive has no power to interfere.

  NAVY—ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS—IRON.
  MR. T. FRYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is a

  1247
  fact that a contract has been made over a period of five years with one firm in Staffordshire, and another in Cleveland, for the supply of certain classes of iron; and, if so, whether he will state if the same is on a sliding scale, and give the quantity and initial price arranged for; and, if he would give the reasons for sanctioning such long time contracts?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): No, Sir; no such contract has been made.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888—ELECTORAL DIVISIONS, BELPER.
  MR. JACOBYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Why the two Electoral Divisions, Belper No. 1 and Belper No. 2, in the County of Derby, have been joined into one Electoral Division, and upon whose representation the change has been made; whether he is aware that the alteration is contrary to the wishes of a large number of the electors; and, whether he will re-consider the question, and allow the Division to remain divided as originally settled by the Quarter Sessions?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)(who replied)said: The two Electoral Divisions of Belper have been united for the purpose of the first election of County Councillors. The Divisions have been thus combined because the separate Electoral Divisions are not conterminous with areas for which there are separate lists of voters. The order was issued after communication with the Clerk of the Peace of the county. I have received no representations that this combination is contrary to the wishes of a large majority of the electors. As there are no separate lists for the two Divisions, the Divisions must be united for the first election.

  INDIA—THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS—SPEECH OF TOE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention had been drawn to the speech of the Marquess of Dufferin made at Calcutta on Saturday, when he said of the so-called National Congress—
  "The members of the Congress are answerable for the distribution among thousands of
  1248
  ignorant and credulous men of publications animated by a very questionable spirit, and whose manifest intention is to excite the hatred of the people against the public servants of the Crown in India;"
  whether urgent representations have been made to the Government of India by most of the Native Princes, and by the leaders of the Indian Mahomedans, as to the mischievous effects of these publications, and of the speeches made by delegates to the Congress; and, what steps, in these circumstances, the Indian Government intend to take with regard to further meetings of the Congress?
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked whether the Eight Hon. Sir Richard Garth, Q.C., late Chief Justice of Bengal, had declared the attacks on the Indian National Congress to be "unjust, ungenerous, and impolitic;" whether he had stated that in—
  "Bringing to the notice of the Government what they considered to be defects and abuses in the present system" "they have done this in the most open, straightforward, and respectful way;"
  and whether he had declared—
  "For myself I have long been persuaded that many of the abuses complained of are real and serious; and that some of the proposed reforms would be not only of advantage to India, but would materially strengthen the hands of the Government."
  MR. CONYBEAREasked, if the hon. Gentleman had seen reports from India as to the excitement there arising from the insulting reference to a late president of the Congress, Mr. Naoroji, as a "black man," by the Marquess of Salisbury?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): That Question of the hon. Member does not relate to the one before the House?
  MR. CONYBEARE: I will give Notice of it.
  SIR JOHN GORST: In answer to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that it does appear that the Marquess of Dufferin and Ava has made a speech in India containing the sentences quoted by the hon. Member; and it is also the fact that representations have been made to the Government of India by Native Chiefs and leading Mahomedans as to the mischievous effect of these publications and the speeches made by delegates at the Congress. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, the

  1249
  Secretary of State has not yet received any intimation as to the intentions of the Government of India with regard to other meetings of the Congress. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), the hon. Member must be aware that he has put a Question which it is impossible for me to answer. He asks me what are the opinions of Sir Richard Garth with reference to the Indian Congress. I received Nolice of his Question only 10 minutes ago, and have not yet had time to consult the opinions of Sir Richard Garth on the subject.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Has not the Government of India had in its hands for more than two months the pamphlet of Sir Richard Garth, A Few Plain Truths about India, containing the words I have quoted?
  SIR JOHN GORST: Yes, Sir; I have seen the pamphlet of Sir Richard Garth; but it is impossible for me in 10 minutes to verify the accuracy of the hon. Member's quotation.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that this pamphlet must have been published long before the speech of the Marquess of Dufferin, which was made last Saturday?
  SIR JOHN GORST: Yes, Sir; I myself read the pamphlet some months ago.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION AT AYLESTONE, LEICESTERSHIRE.
  MR. PICTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he has now received any Report of the late School Board election in Aylestone, Leicestershire, and if he can explain how it happened that Mr. Edward West received from the Returning Officer, Mr. Thomas Sheppard, a formal notification, dated November 5, of his legal nomination, and yet was afterwards informed by the same Returning Officer that the nomination was invalid; whether it is a fact that on the day for the withdrawal of nominations Mr. Edward West, with others, attended at the office of the Returning Officer and were informed that all was right; whether, in consequence of the absence from home of the Rev. Mr. Howlett, curate in charge, the clerk to the Returning Officer agreed to keep open the withdrawal of names until the
  1250
  day after the date legally fixed; whether it was not until two days after the latter date that Mr. West was told his nomination was invalid, on grounds which have since been acknowledged to be false in fact; whether he will reconsider the desirability of giving some reasonable appeal from mistaken or illegal decisions of Returning Officers; and, whether any complaint of the above irregularities has been received from Mr. Charles Coppack, and what answer has been made to it?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE), in reply, said, that the Returns of the Election had now been received. The Department had no information of what had occurred, beyond the statement of Mr. Coppack that the Returning Officer refused to accept Mr. West's nomination. A reply was made to that communication, in the words of my answer the other night that the decision of the Returning Officer was by law final. The practice I am now asked to alter has been in operation for 18 years without complaint. There is no intention of disturbing it.

  VACCINATION—INQUEST ON ELIZABETH MURRAY, BIRKDALE.
  MR. PICTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has received any further information as to the inquest on the child Elizabeth Murray, at Birkdale; whether it is true, as alleged, that neither the father of the child nor any medical man was called as a witness; and whether, having regard to the vagueness of the verdict "Died from natural causes," in a case where the precise nature of the morbid processes ending in death is the point at issue, and to his statement concerning deaths following vacoination, he will cause further inquiry to be made?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)(who replied)said: I have been in communication with the Coroner by whom the inquest on the child Elizabeth Murray, at Birkdale, was held, and have received the depositions taken at the inquest. From the evidence of the mother it appears that the father, mother, and the infant slept in the same bed; that when the husband went to bed about midnight the child

  1251
  was all right, and that about half-past 3 it was found to be dead. The attendance of the father, or of a medical practitioner, at the inquest was not suggested by the jury, the police, or the mother, and the Coroner did not deem it necessary. Neither the Report by the police nor the evidence suggested that the death was in any way attributable to vaccination; and it does not appear to me to be requisite that I should direct an inquiry with regard to the vaccination of the child.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE CORK DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE.
  MR. LANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Heard, County Inspector of Police, has been discharging the duties of Divisional Magistrate in Cork during the absence of the latter in London; and, if not, who has discharged those duties?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The fact is as stated.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—MODEL SCHOOLS.
  COLONEL WARING(for Mr. JOHNSTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, out of the 34 head masters of model schools in Ireland, only four are members of the Irish Church, while the number of young persons belonging to that Church attending such schools exceeds by 578 the number of Roman Catholics, and by 770, the number of Presbyterians; and, if he can state the numbers, respectively, of the Irish Church, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic Professors and teachers in the schools, Marlborough Street, Dublin, and the average amount paid out of the public money to the teachers of each denomination?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): There are 86 head teachers of model schools, of whom 35 are Roman Catholics, 27 are late Established Church, 23 are Presbyterians, and one is a Methodist. As regards the second paragraph, the numbers respectively of the Professors and teachers in Marlborough Street Train-
  1252
  ing College and Model Schools of each of the denominations named in the Question, for the same period, are—Roman Catholics, 27; late Established Church, 13; Presbyterians, 5—total, 45. The pupils in the Marlborough Street Schools were—Roman Catholics, 1,885; late Established Church, 711; Presbyterian, 142; and other Protestant persuasions, 69—total, 2,807. The average amount paid out of the public money by the Commissioners to the teachers of each denomination is as follows:—Roman Catholics, £112 17 s. 8d.; late Established Church, £109 9s. 5d.; Presbyterians, £106 18 s. 8d.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROCLAIMED BRANCH OF NATIONAL LEAGUE, MEELIN.
  MR. DILLONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether he can state in detail the amount spent in connection with attempts to suppress the proclaimed branch of the National League at Meelin, in the County of Cork, including cost of various trials, drafting in of extra police, removal of prisoners to gaol, &c.?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOTTR)(who replied)said: The Constabulary Authorities report that it would not be practicable to ascertain what expense was incurred in the matter alluded to without making an examination of the accounts for several months past, which would require a considerable time, and seriously interfere with their ordinary duties. I am afraid that I cannot give the information.
  MR. DILLONsaid that the Solicitor General for Ireland told him last week that he was engaged in making out the account; and a precisely similar account had been made by the right hon. Member for Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach).
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member is anxious for the accounts, I will make further inquiries, and see whether it can be obtained; but I cannot promise to alter the decision.
  MR. DILLON: I am extremely anxious to have the information, and must ask the right hon. Gentleman to do everything he can to obtain it.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—RICHMOND DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the circumstances under which the annual contribution of the City of Dublin to the maintenance of the Richmond District Lunatic Asylum was not levied during the present year, and falls upon the rate of next year, the Irish Executive will agree to follow a precedent established in a similar case, by assenting to the addition of one-fourth of the contribution leviable, in the ordinary course, in the rate for 1889, to the annual levy for each of the next four years; and, whether particulars will be given by the Inspectors of Asylums to the Corporation of Dublin of cases becoming chargeable to the city from time to time?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I understand that, with the consent of the Board of Richmond Lunatic Asylum, an arrangement has been come to with the Corporation, who will now present for the charge for 16 months, being the amount for the current year, and for four months of the ensuing year, and they will make like presentments during each of the next two years. An Order in Council will be forthwith passed authorizing this arrangement. I cannot answer the second part of the Question.

  LAW AND JUSTICE-CASE OF CHARLES BERTRAM, ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT.
  MR. CONYBEARE, who had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that a certain Charles Bertram was adjudged a bankrupt by the County Court Judge Giffard, under the following circumstances:—That he took a house at Torpoint, fitted it up with furniture for which he never paid, and was afterwards arrested with goods in his possession which did not belong to him; whether, after his arrest, as an absconding debtor, he was subsequently committed to prison for contempt of Court in not filing proper accounts when ordered to do so by the Court; whether, on October 16, an order for his release
  1254
  was made by the late Judge Giffard, in spite of an application to suspend the granting of such order for release, for the purpose of communicating with the Board of Trade, and because a prosecution was intended; whether the Judge refused to suspend the order, stating, as his reason, that he had received a communication from him requesting the release of Bertram; and, whether he made any such communication to the Judge, and on what grounds?—complained that the Notice he had given of the Question had been emasculated.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CONYBEAEE: I wish to explain—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Put the Question.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I decline to do so.

  TRADE AND MANUFACTURE—NAILERS AND SMALL CHAINMAKERS—INSANITARY CONDITION OF CRADLEY.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention had been called to the insanitary condition of the Cradley District, as described in the following passage from Mr. Burnett's Report:—
  "Open drains everywhere carrying off house-hold refuse, and ruinous privies with overflowing ash-pits, loading the atmosphere with the most pungent odours;"
  and whether he will send down a Local Government Board Inspector to inquire into and report upon the same?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)(who replied)said: An Inspector of the Board has very recently been inquiring as to the prevalence of fever in certain places in the Rural Sanitary District of the Stourbridge Union, which includes Cradley. I am not in a position to-day to say whether this inquiry has been extended to the sanitary condition of Cradley; and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will defer his Question.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THOMAS MORONEY, A PRISONER FOR CONTEMPT.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, as

  1255
  Judge Boyd declines to entertain any application for the release of Mr. Moroney, the Government will now consider the propriety, in order to save his life, of recommending him to the mercy of the Crown?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): As this Question relates to an Irish matter, perhaps I may be permitted to answer it. The Attorney General for Ireland states that he has already written to the Solicitor General to say that Judge Boyd stated in the most emphatic way that he would release Moroney if a case as to health were established, and that he could get out at any moment. The case is for Judge Boyd, not for the Executive, who, having regard to the character of the order, cannot interfere. If Moroney consents to be sworn he will be let out by the Judge, and if he establishes a case by motion in Court as to his health he will also be let out. I understand that the law in Ireland is precisely similar to the law in England.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that in Ireland, as in England, a prisoner cannot be let out of prison on the score of ill-health except a motion is made in Court? I venture to say that such is not the English practice.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman let out any persons committed for contempt of Court; but I am distinctly advised that when a person is in prison for such an offence the Crown clearly has no power to interfere.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I should like to answer the Question of the right hon. Gentleman. I have had experience of a case of contempt of Court where a prisoner was detained for a long time. I communicated with the Judge, and upon my representation the Judge released the prisoner.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite so. It appears to me that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman fully bears out what I have stated.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, whether, since the recent debate in the House on the case of Moroney, the Government had caused any independent inquiries to be made as to his condition; and whether the right hon Gentleman
  1256
  had considered that, if the statements made in the debate concerning Moroney's health be well founded, that fact would render it impossible for such an application to be made?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No. I gather there would be no impossibility of that kind. With regard to inquiries made as to Moroney's health, nothing has been done in consequence of the recent debate. Long before the debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) the matter was being inquired into.
  MR. SEXTON: Assuming the condition of Moroney's health to be as stated, is it not obvious that it will prevent inquiries by the Judge?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no danger of that kind.
  MR. DILLON: Are we to understand that, if Moroney does not make application to the Judge, he is to be allowed to die or go mad in prison?
  [No reply.]
  MR. DILLON: I think we are entitled to an answer.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I appeal to the House whether the answers I have already given have not been absolutely specific? I am unable to add to the answers I have given. The health of Moroney was examined into nearly three weeks ago by the Prisons Board. The Executive have no power to order his release. The Judge has the power. The Judge has stated publicly in Court that if Moroney's health required it he would be released. I do not know anything that could be added to these three propositions.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there existed any limitation on the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy by the Sovereign; and whether it was not the Constitutional duty of the Home Secretary to advise Her Majesty that that power existed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): It is the duty of the Home Secretary to advise Her Majesty in the exercise of Her Prerogative. The practice of the Home Office has been never to interfere in an order of attachment made to enforce some other order; and the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy with regard to attachment for contempt is confined at

  1257
  the Home Office in England to definitive penal sentence inflicted after some accomplished and complete fact. When an order of attachment is made in order to enforce obedience to some other order, it is held at the Home Office that the Sovereign has no right to interfere.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the Question to which he pressed for an answer was whether there existed in the Constitution of this country any limitation on the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy by the Sovereign? He wanted to know distinctly whether the House was to understand that there were certain crimes in regard to which Her Majesty had not the power to exercise Her Prerogative, and that there were other crimes in regard to which she possessed that power.
  Several Conservative MEMBERS: Do not answer.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CONYBEARE: May I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the Home Secretary is not to answer the Question I have addressed to him in consequence of the shouts of people below the Gangway?
  MR. SEXTONinquired whether there had been any indication of an increase of the malady in the case of Moroney since the last examination was made; and whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay the Report of the examination on the Table?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the results of any investigation into the health of the prisoner. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that it is not a matter which comes before me in the ordinary course; but if he will put a Question upon the Piper I shall be able to get the information by to-morrow.

  THE FRANCHISE ACTS (IRELAND)—REQUISITIONS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If Boards of Guardians are bound to prosecute parties who refuse to return requisition forms properly filled up under the Franchise Acts; and, if so, how they are to be compelled to do so when they refuse; and, if they are not, whether it is competent for private individuals to prosecute?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOB IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): (who replied) said, he had forwarded the inquiry to the Local Government Board, and as soon as he received the information the hon. Baronet should have it.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF CONSTABLE EDWARD SWINDELL.
  MR. LANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that at the Cork Assizes on the 5th instant, Crown Counsel applied to the Judge to enter a nolle prosequi in the case in which a Coroner's Jury have found a verdict of wilful murder against Constable Swindell?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Attorney General for Ireland informs me that the fact is as stated in the Question, and that the Lord Chief Baron expressed his entire approval of his not prosecuting on a Coroner's inquisition. He adds that he is now investigating the case, in order to determine whether there are any grounds that proceedings should be taken with a view to the constable being returned for trial in this matter.
  MR. LANEasked, had not the crime been committed five weeks ago, and all the evidence been submitted to the Attorney General 10 days ago, and why did he require further time to decide?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Attorney General had absolute discretion in the matter.
  MR. LANEsaid, he would call attention to this matter on the Vote for the Attorney General's salary.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—FAIR RENTS—THE MAPS.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will suggest to the Land Commission, pending the completion of the new arrangements, the desirability of now suspending the recently made Rule requiring tenants to lodge Ordnance maps with the Sub-Commission before the hearing of their applications to have fair rents fixed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the Solicitor General had already

  1259
  answered a similar Question last week. He, however, had asked for further information from the Commissioners.
  MR. M'CARTANasked that the right hon. Gentleman would make to the Commissioners the suggestion contained in his Question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Commissioners were considering the matter.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—BELFAST INSURANCE FRAUDS—REGISTRATION.
  MR. M'CARTANasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, considering the disclosures made during the recent trials for the Belfast assurance frauds, heard at Wicklow Assizes, the Government will give facilities, now or at the beginning of next Session, to pass a Bill providing, among other things, for the local registration of the names and addresses of persons on whose lives policies of assurance have been obtained by other persons, and making it criminal for one person to effect a policy on the life of another person where there is no insurable interest?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): In reply to the hon. Member, I am afraid it is not possible for me to give an undertaking of the character asked in the hon. Member's Question; but the subject of the existing state of the law as to policies of insurance is receiving the attention of Her Majesty's Government. I ought, however, to say that, as I understand the facts, the Belfast frauds were not occasioned by any defect in the existing law.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, WALES.
  MR. KENYONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, during the coming Recess, he will call the attention of the Cabinet to the numerous pledges made by successive Governments in favour of a measure for the promotion of Intermediate Education in Wales, with the view of including a measure of such importance among the prominent subjects to be dealt with in the ensuing Session of Parliament; and, whether the unanimous support given by Welsh constituencies to the proposal to establish a Welsh University will have adequate consideration in the deliberations of the Government?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I admit the importance of the subjects involved in the Question of my hon. Friend. They are receiving, and will continue to receive, the consideration of Her Majesty's Government during the Recess. I hope that some definite decision on this difficult question may be arrived at.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that one of the chief difficulties in the way of intermediate education in Wales has been removed by the establishment of County Councils, he will give a serious and specific promise that the Government will introduce the Bill on this subject early next Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government are anxious to deal with the question as soon as it is possible to do so; but I am not able to give a definite promise to the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked whether distinct and specific promises had not been made during the past three years?
  [No reply.]

  TRADE AND MANUFACTURE—THE GUNLOCK FILERS OF DARLASTON.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware of the fact that the condition of the gunlock filers of Darlaston is as bad as that of the chain and nail makers of the Cradley district; and, whether he will consider their case in connection with any remedial measures the Government may propose?
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: Before my right hon. Friend answers this Question, I should like to ask him if it is not a fact that the unfortunate condition of many of the operatives in the gun trade, as also of the chain and nail makers in the Cradley District, is not largely due to the pernicious effect on home labour of excessive foreign competition?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am not aware of the extent to which foreign competition has interfered with the trade to which my hon. Friend has referred; but, in answer to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that we have no

  1261
  special information as to the condition of the gunlock filers of Darlaston. Their case, if necessary, might be brought under the notice of the Committee on the Sweating System.

  TRADE AND MANUFACTURE—THE NAILERS' AND CHAINMAKERS' TRADE—CO-OPERATIVE FACTORIES.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that, while nailmaking by hand is partly superseded by machinery, this is not the case with the chainmaking trade, of which Mr. Burnett reports—
  "Instead of being a decaying trade, it continues to develop, and nothing has yet been done to materially supplant hand labour by machinery;"
  whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the chainmakers of Cradley are themselves trying to establish co-operative chainmaking factories, as recommended by Mr. Burnett, but are prevented from doing so by the absence of capital; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will consider the possibility of the advance, by the Loan Commissioners, of a sum of money for that purpose?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Mr. Burnett's Report makes no specific recommendation for the establishment of co-operative chainmaking factories; and, as it is a matter rather for private initiation than for Government action, Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake to consider the question of using State loans for the purpose, as many other industries would have an equal claim for assistance.
  MR. CONYBEAREgave Notice that he would ask for leave to introduce a Bill on the subject.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888—COUNTY COUNCILS—CIVIL SERVANTS.
  SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Civil servants will be permitted to become candidates at the approaching election for County Councils?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Question has been carefully considered
  1262
  by the Government; and they are of opinion that members of the Civil Service should not be permitted to become candidates for the County Councils. It is obvious that the discharge of duties on the County Councils would seriously conflict with their duties in the Civil Service.

  EGYPT—SUAKIN—REINFORCEMENT OF BRITISH TROOPS.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has received any reply to the telegram which he informed the House was despatched on Tuesday last in reference to the military forces at Suakin?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have not yet received any telegram from General Grenfell; but General Dormer, in reply to my telegram, repeats all his former assurances in a complete and satisfactory manner.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked whether, in the absence of any communication from General Grenfell, the Government were carrying out the operation of the despatch of British troops to Suakin?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir. The British troops have, I believe, for the most part arrived at Suakin already.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKMEN BILL.
  In reply to Mr. BROADHURST, (Nottingham, W.),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said: The Government received proposals with regard to this Bill from hon. Gentlemen who are associated with the hon. Member for Nottingham only 48 hours ago. These proposals are of an important character, and they have been most carefully considered by the Government; but no final decision has been arrived at with regard to them. I hope such a decision may be taken in the course of the evening, and then we shall proceed with the Bill to-morrow as the first Order, in the hope and belief that it may be disposed of rapidly, and that the House will afterwards be able to proceed with the Irish Estimates.

MOTION.
  NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE, 1882—RULE 2 (ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE).

    THE UNSATISFACTORY POSITION OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
    MR. LABOUCHERE, Member for the Borough of Northampton, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz, the unsatisfactory position of Public Business.
    The pleasure of the House not having been signified,
    MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the object of his Motion was really to expedite Public Business. The House had a right to complain of the First Lord of the Treasury getting Business into the present mess, and for not taking the Opposition into his councils as to the best mode of getting out of it. It was also a matter of great public importance that they should have some specific understanding from the First Lord that he would not in subsequent Sessions do what he had done in the present Session—that was to say, that he would not put off the Estimates until the last moment, taking Votes on Account, and then, in order to push through the Estimates, take time which it was agreed should not be taken. There was, he contended, absolutely no excuse for the Business having got into the mess it was in. Liberal Governments in recent years had carried out during each Session as much legislation as the present Government had, and yet Liberal Governments were not obliged to come to the House for an Autumn Session, nor yet to take time properly belonging to private Members. The case was really stronger against the right hon. Gentleman than he had stated, for in this Session the application of the clôture was made far more easy. He denied thet there had been obstruction, but if there had been, with closure made so easy, it was the right hon. Gentleman's own fault. Again, when the hours of sitting of the House were altered there was a specific
    1264
    pledge by the right hon. Gentleman that he would not abrogate the Rule by which the Parliamentary day was to cease at 12 o'clock at night unless on the occasion of some great debate; but, notwithstanding that pledge, the right hon. Gentleman had moved day after day that the Rule be suspended when there had been no great debate, and he had further announced that until the end of the Session he intended to make the Motion twice a week. One would suppose the Government had not a sufficient amount of time. Almost from the beginning of the Session nearly every day had been taken by the Government, and yet what had they done? Nothing very wonderful. It was true they had passed a Local Government Bill, but—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has moved the Adjournment for the sake of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. I do not think that under leave so given it is competent to the hon. Gentleman to take a general retrospect of the Session.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he begged pardon; he would only, then, refer to existing arrangements. On July 16 the First Lord of the Treasury first shadowed it forth that there was to be an Autumn Session, and the understanding then was that all legislation should be thrown upon the Autumn Session with the exception of the Local Government Bill, and that the time before the Adjournment should be given up to the Estimates. On July 26, however, this arrangement was precisely reversed. The right hon. Gentleman then proposed that all legislation, except one or two Bills which he mentioned, should take place before the Adjournment, and that the rest of the time of the Session should be devoted almost exclusively to the Estimates. The right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) at that time asked what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do with the Land Purchase Bill, and he said he intended to take it during the present Sitting.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I beg pardon; No.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: This is what the right hon. Gentleman said—"A Bill to continue Lord Ashbourne's Act would be proceeded with during the present Sitting."
    MR. W. H. SMITH: "Session."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: No; the word is "Sitting."
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Then I was mis-reported. The hon. Member will see that on July 12 I stated that the Bill would be taken during the Autumn Session.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Perfectly, and that was precisely the point. It was after the arrangement of July 12 was reversed that he found the words he had quoted in Mr. Walter's report in The Times, which he should have thought was entirely above suspicion in the estimation of the right hon. Gentleman. The Vote on Account was agreed to on the understanding that all the time of the Autumn Session would be given to the Estimates, and that no new legislation would be brought forward. There was now a large portion of the Irish Estimates to be taken; the Scotch Estimates, on which Scotch Members had generally a good deal to say; the Army and Navy Estimates, on which there was a good deal to be said; and a considerable number of Civil Service Estimates. He submitted it was reasonable they should know what the right hon. Gentleman contemplated doing. The only chance he saw of finishing the Estimates next week, as the right hon. Gentleman hoped, would be that he should move that the Estimates be reported on a specific day to the House. Of course, the Opposition would regret that very much, because they were always ready to remain in London as long as might be in order to fulfil their duties. He objected to the system on the part of the organs of the right hon. Gentleman—and very often, by implication, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman himself—of throwing upon the Opposition the fault of the present condition of public affairs. He asserted that it was entirely and absolutely the fault of the right hon. Gentleman, who, as Leader of the House, was responsible for the Public Business. He wanted some clear understanding that in future Sessions the Estimates would be brought in and discussed at an early period of the Session, and that they might not get into the present mess. He also wanted to know what was the arrangement for the last of the Session? He thought the Estimates must be scamped. He
    1266
    begged to move the Adjournment of the House.
    MR. HERBERT GARDNERsaid, he rose to second the Motion. In his humble opinion the present condition of Public Business was not only a shame, but a positive disgrace to the House. He considered that this was due entirely to the way in which the Business had been conducted. Never had a Government so free a hand. It had practically perfect command of the time of the House. It had a stringent closure, and it had the support of a loyal majority, ready at all times to follow them with a touching unanimity; and yet during the two Sessions the condition of Supply had been absolutely disgraceful. He thought more progress would have been made if more regard had been had to the rights of the minority, and more respect shown to Amendments brought forward on his side of the House. The First Lord of the Treasury now proposed that the House should revert to the old, slovenly practice of yawning away the millions of the taxpayers' money in the small hours of the morning. He emphatically entered his protest against such a proposal, and begged to second the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, the hon. Member who had made this Motion attributed the blame entirely to the unfortunate conduct of the Leader of the House. He begged leave to differ from him altogether. He did not think any Member of that House would for a moment attribute to the right hon. Gentleman a want of tact or perfect temper under trying circumstances as they arose. He thought the real reason of the delay was exceedingly simple. Since he had heard of the Motion he had looked into the facts, and he thought they would supply food for reflection. He found that there had been 23 working days in this Session between November 6 and December 6, and during that time, as far as he had been able hurriedly to ascertain, five Gentlemen sitting opposite had made between them 158 speeches, at the lowest computation, and 183 at the highest. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere)

    1267
    himself had made 43 speeches since the House assembled on the 6th of November. He had observed that during the present Session the hon. Member frequently divided the Leadership of the majority of Gentlemen opposite with the Leaders on the Front Opposition Bench, and therefore it was not unnatural, perhaps, that he should feel called upon to address the House so frequently. He came to three hon. Members who occupied a very different position. The hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) had spoken 30 times, the hon. Memberfor Caithness (Dr. Clark) 36 times, and the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) 38 times. Those three hon. Members had not been a very long time in the House, and, while frankly acknowledging their perfect right to address the House on every available opportunity, yet what he wanted to point out was that if all the Members of the House, nine out of 10 of whom had quite as much right as those to whom he referred to express their opinions on every subject debated, were to take that course, it was clear that the conduct of Public Business in Parliament would become absolutely impossible. He mentioned this to show, both inside and outside the House, what was the real cause of the deadlock. The most Heaven-born Minister that ever led the House of Commons within the memory of man would be absolutely unable to manage the Business on this principle. Everyone must have observed that by far the larger part of the time of the House had been occupied by men far removed from those best qualified to give guidance or instruction to the House. He hoped the House would recognize the absolute necessity for some further reform in the Rules of the House in the direction of an individual closure. Until there was power to suppress speeches evidently made for the purpose of Obstruction, and made against the general and unmistakable sense of the House, it would be absolutely impossible to conduct the Business of the House in a satisfactory manner. He hoped hon. Members who were desirous to promote Public Business would refuse to gratify the hon. Member by following his Leadership, but would proceed at once to the Business before them.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, no complaint
    1268
    could be made of the conduct of the Leader of the House. All recognized the courtesy and tact with which he carried out his duties. Without going into the question of who was to blame for the existing state of things, he wished to protest against the great abuse of the Rules of the House under which the Government had been allowing themselves during the past few weeks to repeatedly suspend the 12 o'clock Rule. When that Rule had been passed strong powers had been given to the Government of closing protracted debates; and he thought that the Government might have used the closure more freely than they had done. Not only ought the Government to exercise the closure if they thought fit to do so, but free means of individual closure should be given to be used if any hon. Member were unduly trespassing on the time of the House. He believed that the Business of the House had been carried on better than it had during any previous Session of which he had had experience—with far less personal irritation and more business-like attention. Any gradual suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule would lead back to all the evils under which the House had before suffered.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that he was anxious, if possible, to bring the discussion to a close. It did not seem to him to be a method of advancing Public Business to consider at great length the existing circumstances. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had charged him with having broken a pledge. He was not conscious that he had done so. He would not go into a full explanation of the circumstances under which he had made the statement referred to, but the House must be perfectly well aware that there was all the difference in the world between debates as carried on upon Bills in the House and the consideration of Supply at the end of the Session under circumstances of very great pressure. He had stated to the House some days previously that the condition in which the House found itself seemed to render it necessary that he should make proposals to the House; and taking steps to inquire, he found that they were, as he thought, on the whole, satisfactory to the House. Those in the position he occupied must from time to time make a fresh departure under circumstances which were exceed-

    1269
    ingly difficult. Reference had been made to the danger of rushing Supply through the House, and of depriving the taxpayers of the protection they ought to have. But if the hon. Gentleman sat through the debates in the House on Supply he would find that very rarely indeed were such valuable speeches given as those from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and the noble Lord behind the Treasury Bench (Lord Randolph Churchill). The speeches were generally made for the purpose of airing some grievance, and were not directed to effecting economy and advancing the Public Service. The hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division of Essex was animated by a strong desire to respect the rights of private Members. If private Members would only be so good as to respect Public Business! An observation had been made as to the large amount of work remaining to be done; he admitted that; but how many days had they given to Supply in the course of the present year? Thirty-two days; and on an average of 12 years up to 1886, under successive Governments, 26 days were found sufficient for the purpose of considering Supply, including several very lengthened debates on Votes of Credit for large sums of public money. He only stated these facts in order that it might be realized that the time now occupied by hon. Members in discussing Supply was altogether out of proportion to that occupied in any former Parliament. It rendered necessary some reconsideration of the position which Supply should take in the Business of the year. He had been asked what course he intended to take next year. It was early to speak of that; but he thought he had stated clearly enough that the view of the Government was that new arrangements must be made with regard to Supply, so that the Civil Service Estimates should be taken at a very early period in the Session and considered without the pressure from which the House had latterly suffered. It was the intention of the Government to make proposals to the House to secure that result at the commencement of next Session. He had further been asked by an hon. Gentleman opposite what he proposed to do this year. He would reply by asking the hon. Gentleman what he himself
    1270
    and his Friends proposed to do—[Mr. LABOUCHERE: Our duty]—how many days they proposed to add to the 32 which they had already devoted to the consideration of Supply? It was the duty of the Government to ask the House to consider the Votes still remaining for consideration as quickly as was consistent with such due deliberation in the discharge of their obligations to the country. But he could give no forecast or promise—as he had never placed the convenience of hon. Members before the obligations due to the country—as to the time in which hon. Members might hope for a termination of the Session.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was not fond of Motions for Adjournment, and he did not think he ever stood up for one in his life. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had addressed the House in a fair and conciliatory spirit, and he hoped that the speech had deterred hon. Members from accepting the challenge of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) to enter into acrimonious personal attack. He was justified in saying that when the right hon. Member had attacked hon. Gentlemen by name and had called upon the House to alter the Rules of the House so as to apply a personal gag. The hon. Member below the Gangway had made this Motion for Adjournment merely for the purpose of asking explanations of the Government which could not be made upon the Motion for the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule. The hon. Member wished to come to an understanding as to how the remainder of the Session was to be disposed of. He thought it was a little imprudent of the Leader of the House to answer that appeal by addressing a question to the hon. Member as to what he was going to do. That might lead to a rather protracted discussion and rather discordant suggestions. He would not enter into any recrimination as to whom to lay the blame of the present state of Public Business; but he could not accept the blame which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division had attempted to cast on the Opposition side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of a Heaven-born Minister. Perhaps they might live to see, some of these days, a Heaven-

    1271
    born Minister, and then they would know how the Business of the House ought to be conducted. But in the meanwhile they must do the best they could with what they had. The Government had during the past two Sessions been placed in an especially favourable position—having had nearly all the time of the House. Nor could they say that their two great measures of the present Session—the Local Government Bill and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Conversion Scheme—had been met with any factious opposition. The Estimates had not this Session been in any degree unduly discussed. Important questions had been raised with regard to the Naval and Military Estimates, but the discussions had not been carried on in any factious spirit, or exclusively from the Opposition side of the House. Certain of the supporters of the Government had very properly taken part in these discussions on military and naval subjects. As to the Irish Estimates, he could not say that he had found any Vote discussed at excessive length. It ought to be borne in mind that Ireland was being governed under an exceptional law, and the conduct of the Executive must therefore naturally be largely discussed. This was a sound principle which the Government could not deny. A few days ago, in a moment of frankness, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury pointed to a remedy when he spoke of there being "several Parliaments instead of one." He could not agree with the suggestions of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division, who seemed to think that not only should the Government alone introduce legislation, but that only Members on the Treasury Bench should address the House. Nor could he agree with his hon. Friend's (Mr. S. Buxton) views as to the more frequent use of the closure. The fact was that if the Government took for themselves the whole time of the House, and deprived private Members of those opportunities which, under ordinary circumstances, they possessed of bringing matters in which they were interested before the House, the discussions on the Estimates must necessarily be prolonged, for these Estimates and Motions for Adjournment afforded them the only opportunities of laying their views before the House. The Government was there not only for purposes of legislation and
    1272
    administration, but to look into grievances. A good deal of value lay in the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that the Estimates should be taken earlier in the Session. With regard to the 12 o'clock Rule, he did not desire to make any charge against the First Lord of the Treasury; he was sure he had not intended to break any promise he had made, but if he made a Motion for the general suspension of the Rule this would afford an opportunity for discussion, whereas these daily Motions for its suspension did not. Therefore it was that his hon. Friend had made this Motion for the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of eliciting explanations from Her Majesty's Government. Having attained his object he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Motion, so that the House might, without further delay, proceed with its regular Business.
    DR. CLARKsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin) had called attention to him, he wished to explain that, having found from the Estimate that Scottish officials were only paid one-half the rates paid to English officials, and that in Scotland the localities paid for many things which in England were largely paid out of the Imperial Funds, he desired to bring this injustice to Scotland before the House and country. As he could not do so in the ordinary way, the Government having taken all the nights possible for discussion of such matters, he had been compelled to raise these matters on the Estimates, and would very likely have to do so again.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) would not suppose he was slighting his advice—in the spirit of which he entirely concurred—if he made a few observations on one portion of this subject which had not been discussed before. Whatever opinions might be formed as to the state of Business generally in the House, it must be agreed that the state of Scotch Business in particular was, in the highest degree, scandalous and deplorable. He would not speak of that monstrous, but now, happily, dead Bill which the right hon. Gentleman tried to induce them to discuss in the few half-hours of a Wednesday afternoon in the summer; but he would call attention to the fact that

    1273
    there was on the Order Book for that very night the most important measure which had been proposed for Scotland since the Government came into Office—the Universities (Scotland) Bill—and Members were brought down there on the possibility that that measure might be brought forward, without knowing in the least whether it was the intention of the Government or not to press that Bill. It was an insult to the Scotch Members that the Government, having wasted the whole of the summer without giving them the slightest opportunity of discussing Scotch Business, should call upon them at the eleventh hour to deal with a measure of this great importance. He had another grievance with regard to the position of the Scotch Estimates. It added a serious injury to the insults Scotch Members had already suffered that they should postpone the Scotch Estimates to the very last hours of the Session. Surely Ireland had had sufficient precedence to have entitled the Scotch Members, at all events, to have had their Estimates taken before the Irish. He held in his hand a copy of Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne with which this Session—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman is deviating from the strict limit of the matter of urgent importance.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, what he wanted to point out was that the Government could not be relieved from the charge of having contributed to the present position by their vacillation; because of all the long list of measures which they stated they were going to ask the House to deal with this year hardly one had been proceeded with. Of the three measures over which the time of the Session had been mostly wasted, only one was alluded to in the Queen's Speech, and that only faintly. Bearing that fact in mind, and also remembering that the Scotch Members had not received anything like fair treatment from the Government—their interests being unjustly postponed to every other interest in the Empire—he would have no hesitation in voting for the Motion.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he desired to add a few words to insist upon and underline the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. There had been no atten-
    1274
    tion whatever paid to Scottish Members, Scottish interests, or Scottish measures during the past Session, and during the remnant of the Session they got nothing from the Government but a joke from the Leader of the House that somebody must take the last place, and so, forsooth, the Scottish Members were to do so. [Mr. W. H. SMITH: That is most unfair.] The right hon. Gentleman had spoken more than once of having regard to what he called the wishes of the Scotch Members. He (Mr. Marjoribanks) would like to know from whom the right hon. Gentleman had got any expression of opinion as coming from Scotch Members? He, at any rate, as one of the Seotch Members, had not been consulted by any Member of the Government. If the wishes of the Scotch Members had been gathered from the hon. Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell) and the hon. Member for the St. Andrew's Burghs (Mr. Anstruther), they no more represented the majority of the Scotch Members than their Party represented the opinion of the majority in Scotland. He knew that the Scotch were considered to be patient people, but there was a limit to all patience, and even the worm would turn. The Scotch people would not consider speeches such as those of the Prime Minister at Edinburgh, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer when in Scotland, as a sufficient set-off for the entire neglect of Scotch Business in Parliament. He thought they were entitled to have some day fixed for the Scotch Estimates, and the least they could expect was that some Member of the Government would say that an early day next week would be given for the discussion of the Scotch Estimates. They were also entitled to have a definite expression of opinion from the Government as to what they intended to do with the Scotch Universities Bill. It was all very well to say that the Bill would be taken pari passu with the Appropriation Bill when it seemed likely that the Appropriation Bill would be proceeded with during the last week of December, but if the Appropriation Bill was to be taken in Christmas week it was rather hard to expect the Scotch Members to remain to discuss the Universities Bill then. Though they did not offer any opposition to the main principle of the Bill, there were questions of

    1275
    considerable importance raised by which it could not be expected hon. Members would begin to discuss at that period of the year.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he could only speak by the indulgence of the House, but he would to-morrow name an early day next week for the consideration of the Scotch Estimates, and he would also make the intentions of the Government known with regard to the Scotch University Bill. He hoped the House would not unnecessarily prolong the discussion.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that as his Motion had secured the object he had in view he would ask leave to withdraw it.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Proceedings on Supply, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, Sittings of the House."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 226; Noes 117: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 328.)

ORDERS OF TEE BAY.
  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £13,728, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1889, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."
    MR. LANEsaid, he rose for the purpose of renewing the question of Ballycotton Pier, which was under discussion when Progress was reported yesterday. At the present moment that pier was in a most unsatisfactory condition. The original plans and specifications had not been adhered to, and the result was that the centre of the structure was subsiding, besides cracking, and the end of the pier was in danger of falling out into the sea. The Cork Grand Jury had taken direct issue
    1276
    with the Board of Works as to the way in which the work had been carried out; they stated alterations had been made in the original plans and specifications which were not calculated to secure the soundness of the structure; that the walls of the pier were cracked and split from the top to the bottom. In spite of arrangements in the specifications that the hearting of the pier was to be constructed of solid stones, and not of clay and sand, the greater part consisted of the latter materials, which were being daily washed away by the tides. They had carefully inspected a considerable portion of the materials which had been taken out, and by sifting the material through a screen it was found that it consisted one-half of clay, and one-half of large and small stone. There should have been no clay whatever, and upon that ground alone he urged a strong complaint against the Board of Works who had permitted so insecure a structure to be erected. Since the beginning of the year the pier had not been in the charge of any public body. The Grand Jury of Cork refused to take it over, and the result was that every month fresh disclosures were being made as to the subsiding of the pier. That state of things was likely to continue, unless the Secretary to the Treasury stepped in and took the necessary measures for putting the pier in a sound and safe condition. This was not purely a matter of local grievance, but one which affected the expenditure of a great Public Department in Ireland. It was a typical case illustrative of the way in which the Board of Works carried out works of this nature. In this instance he spoke from personal local knowledge, but he believed there were very few Members who were not able to corroborate his statement that in almost every district in Ireland there was some monument of the incapacity of the Board of Works to carry out works of this nature. The whole coast of the country was strewn around with failures of this kind, and unless the Treasury stepped in to mark their disapproval of the manner in which the Board of Works gave certificates to contractors for unsound structures, and intimidated the County Authorities by requiring them to take over each unsound structure against their will, this waste, and worse than waste, of the public money would

    1277
    continue. Not only was the public money spent, but the work was worse than useless, because really useful work was prevented. Another pier in the same locality—Knockadoon—was almost in the same condition as Bally-cotton Pier. It was crumbling away, although it was only constructed a few years ago, and now the Local Authorities were called on to replace it. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would inquire into these matters. He also desired to know whether the contractor was not bound by his contract to make the harbour at Bally-cotton of a certain depth in different places? He held in his hand the last Report of the Royal Commission upon Irish Public Works, and one of the Members of the Commission was the very gentleman who lately went over with the Secretary to the Treasury to inspect the pier and harbour. At page 13 of the Report of the Royal Commission it was laid down that unless these harbours erected under the Fishery Act of 1883 were of a suitable depth, and accessible to fishing craft at all states of the tide, their erection was a waste of the public money. At page 19 of the same Report, there was a direct reference to the harbour of Ballycotton. The Commissioners, in their Report upon the harbour, without having visited the locality, but deriving their conclusions from the Report of Mr. Manning, said that there was a depth of 16 feet at low water in spring tides at the termination of the pier, diminishing to 12 feet at a length of 200 feet. As a matter of fact, there was no such depth of water at all. There never had been more than a depth of eight feet, and of that depth a great part of the harbour was deprived by the accumulation of the rubbish in the centre. On the very day the hon. Gentleman and Mr. Barry visited Ballycotton a large fishing boat was stranded in a dangerous position on this remnant of the old pier. They saw it themselves. Still, the Board of Works certified that it had been all removed. He supposed that, owing to the repeated criticisms that had been made in the House of the unsatisfactory nature of the work done by the Board of Works, the Board were very anxious to escape from under the public eye. They asked the Commissioners to report to Parliament in favour of taking the con-
    1278
    trol of these piers altogether away from the Local Authorities, and handing it back to the Board of Works, that Board to have full powers to raise rates for the purpose of maintaining and repairing the piers. What did the Chairman of the Board of Works stipulate for when the suggestion was made? He said that he thought
    "That in regard to these works the Grand Juries should have power to transfer their powers and duties to the Board of Works in each case in which the latter might be willing to accept the transfer, but which they should not do unless satisfied that the work under consideration was in a proper state of repair at the date of the transfer."
    The Board of Works took precaution beforehand against their being compelled to take over any work which was not in a proper condition. But, while they were making that statement before the Royal Commissioners, they wrote very threatening letters down to the Grand Jury in Cork as to the taking over of the pier which was reported by the engineer to be in such a state that even an ordinary layman could see that it was in a condition that was certain to end in complete ruin before, perhaps, this winter was over. Though he, as the Representative of the Division in which this pier was situated, had made several requests to the Secretary to the Treasury to let him know what was the nature of Mr. Wolfe Barry's Report, he had been unable to get the slightest inkling of the nature of that Report. The Representatives of the Board of Works, or, at any rate, the people connected with them on the spot, had boasted that Mr. Wolfe Harry's Report would back up the Board of Works, and that the people who had interested themselves in the matter would simply be jockeyed. He was sure that the matter would receive fair and ample consideration at the hands of the Secretary to the Treasury; and he believed that if the hon. Gentleman continued his action in the same spirit in which he commenced it—namely, by paying attention to the justice of the case rather than to the question of preserving or protecting the Board of Works from proper criticism and full responsibility for their action in certifying this pier was in proper condition, no doubt the people of the locality would have reason to be satisfied with the result. He begged to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £800.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £800, part of the Salary of the Chief Engineer."—(Mr. Lane.)
    MR. W. J. CORBETsaid, that on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) he desired to draw attention to two harbours in the Division of Wicklow which he represented, and which, he regretted to say, were very much in the same condition as the pier at Bally-cotton. The first case was that of the harbour of Arklow. On a former occasion he drew attention to the condition of this harbour, and to the mishaps that occurred there, owing, as he alleged, to the imperfect protection given to the pier and to its defective construction. The defective construction had been made good to a certain extent, but, unfortunately, at the cost of the inhabitants of Arklow and the baronies contributing to the guarantee. He contended that a sum of about £5,000 had been thrown away in making good the defects that originated through the inefficiency of the plans of the Board of Works. But other damage had recently occurred. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) a question that day upon the subject, and the hon. Gentleman, speaking, of course, from the information that had been given him by the Board of Works, stated that the damage was quite trivial. He did not gather that the damage had been remedied, but that it would be remedied, and that the cost would be met out of the harbour tolls, and some small balance that remained from the original sum provided. He had received a communication that day from the Town Commissioners of Arklow, from which he gathered that in the construction between the old and the new pier an aperture about 28 feet in length, 20 feet wide, and nine feet high, had appeared. The present position of the pier, he was informed by the Commissioners, was most dangerous, especially owing to the fact that some of the work had slipped and left the structure in danger of toppling over altogether. His informants said—
    "The present dangerous position of the new structure demands immediate remedy. The harbour master lately has had hags of cement and gravel put in to fill up the apertures, and we have teen informed that such were useless and of no effect, having been washed away."
    1280
    He thought that that statement was not quite in accordance with the answer the Secretary to the Treasury gave him at Question time. He complained that the Board of "Works, when Questions were asked in that House, supplied misleading information, and he contended that the way in which this great Irish Department scamped its work was simply disgraceful. It was not fair or just that the baronies which had guaranteed this large outlay should be called upon to make good defects which, he contended, arose from the default of the Board of "Works. He now came to mention the facts concerning the Greystones harbour. A sum of £10,000 was provided for constructing a small fishing harbour at Greystones, and when the work was proceeded with for some distance it was found that the harbour was getting filled up with shingle. Before the pier was run out the shingle that was driven down by the north-east wind was driven back by the storm that came from the opposite direction, and so there was a counterbalancing influence. But since the harbour had been constructed it proved, as was said in the Report of the Royal Commission on Public Works, a trap for catching the shingle. He was informed—in fact, it was stated at a public meeting and reported in the newspapers—that some persons walked dry-shod from the shore into a portion of the harbour where formerly there was 10 feet of water. Two or three times last year and the year before be asked Questions with reference to the construction of a north groyne to stop the travelling of the shingle, but the invariable reply he received was that an officer of the Board of Works was observing it. That official's observation did not seem to have led him to any practical result, but he could now have the satisfaction of contemplating dry land where there was water before the Board of Works took the work in hand. He (Mr. W. J. Corbet) desired to know what the Treasury was going to do in order to let the poor fisher folk of Greystones have a fair opportunity of exercising their calling. There was a considerable sum of money raised in addition to the Government grant; certainly it was too much to be thrown away. He sincerely hoped that in regard to both these piers the Secretary to the Treasury would move the Lords of

    1281
    the Treasury to act in a liberal spirit, especially as the Board of Works incubus in Ireland was responsible for the damage which had occurred. He begged to support the Motion of his hon. Friend.
    MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDsaid, that the Committee had had a very clear, complete, and perfectly truthful statement from the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) in regard to the unfortunate condition of Ballycotton Harbour. It was, perhaps, well that he should point out exactly how the question of these works stood in regard to finance. There, no doubt, was an Act of Parliament, under which the Grand Jury, who now, at all events, represented the ratepayers of the county, could be compelled to take over such works as were passed by the engineer of the Board of Works. There was no apparent power left to the Grand Jury to have the works again inspected by an engineer, or for them to make any examination of the works before they were called upon to keep them in repair. Nothing would satisfy the ratepayers of the county of Cork except the clear statement of an engineer who would be above suspicion that the pier was capable of resisting the force of the sea, and that the harbour had a sufficient depth of water in it to be of use to the fishing boats of the locality. The Report of the County Surveyor as to the condition of the pier was a very strong one, and passages from it had been read to the Committee. There were fissures in it both long and deep, and he himself had seen an oar put into one of them to the full extent of the oar, or about 12 feet. He should like to know from the Secretary to the Treasury when the Report of Mr. Wolfe Barry would be produced? Mr. Kirkbey, the County Surveyor of Cork, no doubt smarted severely under the censure of the Board of Works in Dublin, which was both unjust and uncalled for, from a communication in which they used these words to the Grand Jury in Cork—
    "It is with extreme reluctance that the Board feel themselves placed in the position of having to state that the County Surveyor has shown himself insufficiently acquainted with Marine Works, and has misled the Grand Jury in conveying an adverse opinion in regard to them."
    But the Grand Jury were not yet convinced, nor were the ratepayers who were
    1282
    interested in the matter, that Mr. Kirkbey was not right when he made the assertion that the works were not in a proper state. Certainly Mr. Kirkbey's view was entirely borne out by what had happened to the pier during the last gales. Father Norris, on the 8th of November last, spoke of large fissures having made their appearance in the pier since the recent gales. There had been large gaps from the beginning, but as the works were becoming settled the fissures were growing worse day by day. This was a pier with the expense of maintaining which for ever the Board of Works was anxious to saddle upon the county of Cork. He himself had examined the pier, and found it to be in a most unsound condition. Another gentleman, a friend of his, who had recently visited Ballycotton immediately after the last gale, indorsed word for word the statement of Father Norris. Damage was still going on, and the pier was in a most insecure position. So much for the pier. He had himself been anxious that a larger scheme should be carried out, so that not only fishing boats but coasters should have been able to enter. The Board of Works had even refused to let the plans and specifications be seen by the ratepayers. The depth of water was altogether inadequate for the purposes of a fishing harbour.
    COLONEL NOLANasked, whether the hon. Member was alluding to the depth of water at the lowest spring tides?
    MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDsaid, that at certain dates, generally in April and September, the tide fell lower than at other times, but there were also tides caused by off-shore winds. It was a spring tide when he was there, and it was a somewhat small one, but the amount of space inclosed was not sufficient to accommodate the fishing boats even under the present scheme. Over and over again the Board of Works had been applied to to produce the specifications, plans, and estimates, and over and over again they had refused to do so. And the County Authorities were not to be blamed if, when they saw the pier and harbour in the course of construction, they pointed out the absolute necessity of removing the old pier. The day upon which the Secretary to the Treasury visited the pier

    1283
    there was a low spring tide, but the flood tide had come in to the height of three or four feet before the hon. Gentleman arrived, so that the obstructions were nearly covered, concealing a state of things with which it was of the utmost importance the hon. Member should have made himself acquainted; whether that was the case or not they had no estimate in regard to the things which ought to be removed. They stretched all along the quay, and blocked up the wall of the quay way. The works were the laughing-stock of the locality, and had been strongly condemned. The old pier ought to be removed at any cost. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would now take means to allow the ratepayers to see the full report of the independent engineer who had been sent down to inquire into the matter.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that the subject was a very difficult one to deal with, and he thought the difficulty had been well illustrated by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald), who not only possessed naval knowledge and skill, but had a personal acquaintance with Ballycotton. Of course, so far as the locality was concerned, it always wanted the largest harbour and pier and quay that could be made. At Ballycotton there was a large pier which the fishing boats had for some time frequented. Before the pier-head was made, and it was to be made a great deal more substantial than the rest of the pier, the County Authorities objected to the plan, and maintained that there ought to be a larger pier. That was the usual custom; and when works of this kind were finished there was generally a demand that everything should be done over again, or that they should return to the original plans. That was invariably the case, not only at Ballycotton, but everywhere else. Therefore he thought the Secretary to the Treasury in this instance would regard the complaint of the County Authorities with a very considerable amount of suspicion; indeed, he attached very little importance to the Report of the County Surveyor, whose personal experience of works of this kind upon the coast was not very great. Probably the County Surveyor knew enough about operations of this kind to be able to criticize them, although he would not
    1284
    be able to undertake them. He thought that most of the County Surveyors' Reports ought to be regarded with suspicion. He quite acknowledged that they might have a considerable amount of ability, but he very much doubted whether any of them were competent to build piers and harbours. No doubt it was the proper thing of the Grand Jury to desire to defend the interests of the ratepayers, and they would not want to take over any pier if they could help it. Certainly they did not want to go to the expense of making it. He had been one of the Fishery Commissioners who inquired into the question of piers and harbours and fishing accommodation on the Irish coast. Of course the Commissioners had the usual difficulty in deciding between the claims of different localities; but as he was not personally responsible he could not say that he had been a very warm advocate for any particular locality. The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston), who was also one of the Commissioners, and the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. W. J. Corbet) were in favour of works at Arklow and Greystones. The Commission, however, were only responsible for recommending the sites without bearing responsibility for the construction of the works. The responsibility for the construction fell solely upon the Board of Works. The Commission simply decided upon the locality, and the proportion which it should contribute towards the expenses. He thought it was bad policy for Irishmen to abuse all the harbours which had been constructed, because, as a matter of fact, they wanted a good many more yet, and without more harbours it would be impossible to develop the fishing industry. Therefore, making indiscriminate attacks upon all the harbours which the Board of Works had constructed was, in his opinion, a very foolish policy. Certain complaints had been made by the hon. Member for East Cork and the hon. Member for Cambridge in reference to the state of the harbour at Ballycotton, and those hon. Members might be right in their strictures. His own opinion was that every harbour and pier ought to be handed over to the County Authorities in good condition. In this case it would appear that the site selected was bad, and that the harbour itself had been a

    1285
    source of considerable expense to the county; even 20 years ago heavy expense was incurred by the County Authorities. The new pier was proposed to be handed over to the County Authorities by the Board of Works, and, of course, as the county would have to maintain the pier, everybody who contributed to the rates would naturally challenge the manner in which the work had been executed. The Board of Works had very good engineers connected with the office, and some of them no doubt were acquainted with the construction of piers, but marine engineering was the most difficult branch of an engineer's business, and there had been a large number of failures even on the part of the most eminent engineers. There had, also, been heavy expenditure in order to continue and maintain what at first had merely been the result of an experiment. He was afraid that unless they would spend an extra sum of money as an insurance they would not be able to find out all at once whether a pier was well constructed or not. He was afraid that owing to the force of the sea upon the coast of Ireland two-thirds of the Irish piers had sustained much damage, and in order to meet that difficulty it was absolutely necessary at times to depart from the original plan. Now that the execution of this pier by the Board of Works had been publicly challenged, he thought the Secretary to the Treasury should instruct some eminent engineer, totally unacquainted with the country, and who was perfectly neutral, to make an examination and give a Report. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald) and the Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) had entered into the question from a totally different point of view. He would not say that it was not a point of view they had no right to lay before the Committee. But it was one which he did not think the Committee ought to entertain. He referred to the depth of water. No doubt that was a very important question; everybody wanted as much depth of water as possible, and it was constantly asserted that a particular pier was of no use, because there was only a certain depth of water in the harbour. He thought it would be sufficient if a moderate-sized vessel could get in at all states of the tide. Now, he did not
    1286
    suppose a good-sized fishing vessel would draw less than nine feet of water, and there must be one or two feet under her keel, so that it was very expensive to build a harbour for the accommodation of vessels of that kind. Of course the expenditure increased very largely, according to the increased depth of water. He did not profess to be an authority upon the construction of harbours, but if they were to have a harbour that was to be accessible to fishing boats at the lowest tides, then such a harbour would cost at least £40,000 to construct, whereas if they built a harbour sufficiently large to let fishing vessels in, the cost would not be more than £5,000, which would make an enormous difference. He thought the Harbour Commissioners were quite right in recommending the construction of a considerable number of small harbours round the coast. It must be borne in mind that the fishing population was a scattered population, and all wanted a harbour to which they could run. Such harbours were undoubtedly of very great use, and they ought to be constructed by the Government; but, at the same time, they would be of very little service unless they were connected with the railways. All the calculations of the Pier and Harbour Commissioners were based on low water at medium spring tides. It would make a very considerable difference if they were to take the lowest spring tides. It would make a difference of at least three or four feet in the depth of the water in the harbour, and the cost of the con struction would be proportionate. A very large amount of the £250,000 which had been set apart for the construction of those harbours was, he believed, available at the present moment. A large sum could be drawn upon in the shape of guarantees, and there was also an outstanding amount of interest upon the Government loans which could be rendered available. In addition to this, there was a sum of money which a former Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), said ought to go to Irish purposes. In point of fact, there was a sum of £8,000 absolutely available at the present moment. He thought the Irish Members made a bad bargain seven or eight years ago

    1287
    when they agreed to spend £250,000, and he thought the Secretary to the Treasury ought now to do something to show that the funds he had referred to were available for harbour purposes at Greystones and at Ballycotton. Good professional information ought to be secured as to what were the proper sites, and that information ought to come from a perfectly independent source. He did not see, however, why they should be asked to increase the depth of water, and entirely reconstruct the pier, without they were prepared to raise the whole question of the construction of piers and harbours in Ireland. The hon. Member for East Cork had not given the Committee fair information as to the depth of the water in Ballycotton Harbour. He had not stated what the depth was at spring tides, and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald) declared that a much larger depth was required than was contemplated under the original plan. Was it proposed to go back to the original plan?
    MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: No!
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he believed that was the original statement. But he did not think that it was necessary to do more than make provision for the accommodation of the fishing boats of the locality; that was all that those engaged in the fishing industry had a legitimate claim to.
    MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDwished to explain. It was proposed at Ballycotton to increase the small space which was provided as shelter for the fishing boats in the old harbour; but the new harbour was such that the piers inclosed the old pier, and the stones of this old pier now occupied the space that ought to be deep water for boats. Before that scheme was decided upon there was an inclosure already existing. The original inclosure was surrounded, and the old pier had been inclosed with it; therefore, when they spoke of the depth of water it should be understood whether they referred to the depth of water at the old pier, which used to be 5 feet at low water spring tides, or the depth of water that was necessary for the new harbour. He might say that he had walked practically dry shod across the old pier in an ordinary spring tide this year.
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, there appeared to have been a diminution in the Vote, as compared with last year, of something like £6,000. He found that the salary of the Solicitor to the Board had been got rid of. He wished to know whether the reduction arose from the re-arrangement of the office, or whether it was a decrease in the total amount of the Vote? Then, again, the charge for Land Act loans, which last year was £7,400, was this year only £5,700, and the travelling expenses of the Inspectors, which last year amounted to £7,400, had been reduced this year to £5,400. He believed, however, that in the latter case there had not been an actual decrease. He found, however, under Sub-head E of the Vote, that the charge for Sub-Inspectors had decreased by about £3,000. The Committee, however, had no opportunity of ascertaining whether there had been any relative decrease in the number of Inspectors. He thought that the information for which he asked ought to be supplied to the Committee, and he asked the Secretary to the Treasury to give it. He did not know how long the present debate was to last; but when the same Vote was under discussion two years ago it took a considerable time to dispose of it. It was then brought to a conclusion in an unusual manner by the Head of the Government at that time informing the Committee that he considered the case which had been made against the Department was so strong, that if the Committee would consent to the passing of the Vote the Government would give a pledge to make proposals to Parliament at the earliest opportunity, the object of which would be to place all questions as to the administration of the Board of Works in the hands of the Irish people and under their control. A good deal had happened since then, but the control of the administration of the Board of Works had not been placed in any degree whatever in the hands of the Irish people. The Secretary to the Treasury was not a Cabinet Minister, or he should have liked to have asked him whether, before they could hope for the redemption of the promise, the Irish people were expected to abandon their national aspirations? He quite agreed with the hon. Member for East Cork and with the hon. Member for

    1289
    Cambridge that the state of Ballycotton Pier demanded serious consideration. He thought the Grand Jury of Cork had every reason to fight shy of the question. Some 30 years ago, when the old pier was constructed, the Grand Jury resisted for a long time every effort to compel them to take over the pier. At that time the Board of Works were a greater power in the House of Commons than they were now, and they succeeded in getting a small Act passed which compelled the Cork Grand Jury to take over the pier, and soon after the Cork Grand Jury took it over the pier fell down. The pier having fallen down, the remains of it were never cleared away, but were allowed to block up the place. He believed it was the existence of these remains which had created some of the difficulties of the case. One of the grievous complaints of the Irish people was that, notwithstanding the distress which existed on the coast of Ireland, even the very few piers which had been erected were not put into a safe and proper condition. The land around the coast was barren and unproductive, and it was very hard, as far as the poor were concerned, that so few harbours had been constructed. His hon. Friend the Member for East Cork had been raising this question for a considerable time. For years the attention of the Irish Department had been directed to the state of Ballycotton Pier. Now this pier was one of the necessaries of life to the people of that fishing village; they had borrowed money from the State for the purpose of securing improved fishing boats. They now went out to sea in the large decked boats which were best adapted to the pursuit of the fishing industry. It would, therefore, be seen that a good pier was absolutely necessary. It cost £6,000 for a boat, and at the present moment he believed that one of them might be seen standing high and dry inside this precious pier. A pier and harbour to be of any use ought, at any rate, to be large enough to enable boats to float. He asked the Committee to look at the position of the people of this fishing village and of the district. They had done all they could. They had given money for the erection of the pier; they had borrowed money from the State to enable them to secure larger boats. They had instructed their Representatives to bring the ques-
    1290
    tion before the House of Commons. Their Representatives had not failed in their duty, and they had brought the matter forward again and again, and yet they were now condemned to stand idly by and see their money wasted and their industry injured while an irritating controversy was being carried on between two bodies, neither of which represented the people. Neither the Board of Works nor the Cork Grand Jury was a representative body, and, so far as the Cork Purveyor was concerned, he was nominated by the Sheriff. The Local Authorities had made representations over and over again, and those representations had been backed up by his hon. Friend the Member for East Cork without the slightest effect. So far as Arklow Harbour was concerned, he could only say that if he found himself outside that harbour in a storm he should very much prefer to remain outside. He did not think that the representations which had been made in that House should pass unheeded. When an examination of works of this character was demanded, if the demand for examination was complied with, it was difficult to secure that the examination itself should be conducted by a person who was regarded by those concerned as both competent and independent. He thought it looked somewhat ill, and was not susceptible of easy explanation, that year after year examinations of this kind were conducted by persons who did not commend themselves to public opinion as impartial and independent. He thought it was not asking too much of the Secretary to the Treasury that in a matter of this kind consultation should be held with the Members representing the localities, and that if any persons were appointed to inquire into the merits of the case, only such persons should be appointed whose impartiality the Representatives of the people were disposed to recognize. Before he sat down he wished to call attention to a matter which had been brought to his notice by a well-informed gentleman in Ireland. There had lately been a correspondence between the President of the Board of Works and the Institute of Architects in Ireland, who objected to the system now pursued at the Board of Works with respect to the preparation of plans for structure, for which loans were procured by private individuals from the

    1291
    State. He asked that this Correspondence should be laid on the Table of the House. The Committee would be aware that the Board of Works was the medium through which the loans of the State were granted for the purpose of erecting buildings in Ireland, such as buildings for national schools, farm buildings, and other buildings of various kinds. The Board of Works prepared certain plans, and they expected the persons who applied for the loans to conform to their requirements; but they went beyond that. Not only did they require the applicants to conform to their plans, but they told the applicants themselves to prepare the plans and submit them for their approval. The Institute of Architects felt aggrieved by the course which had been taken by the Board of Works, who were placing themselves and their employés in competition with the professional element of the country. The gentleman from whom he obtained the information told him that in many instances, through certain influence, the applicants for loans managed to have their plans prepared by officials of the Board. For instance, a gentleman applied to the Board for a loan, and said that he wished to have certain works done. The cry of the Board was, "Get plans and send them to the Board." The next thing was to call in an official of the Board, through whose agency the plans were prepared. He asked that the Correspondence between the Board of Works and the Institute of Architects in Dublin should be laid on the table, because he insisted that such relations as therein described as existing between private individuals and officials of the State were incompatible with an impartial discharge of the duties of the Department. He maintained that it was an unfair and unjustifiable system of competition. When they allowed the Heads of Departments to put themselves into communication with the applicants for loans in respect of the preparation of plans, it naturally followed that there must be unfair play in the dealings of the Board with the applicants. He was told, further, that some of the officials were allowed to supplement their salaries by work for private persons. Was he to understand that officials at the Board of Works not only prepared plans, but that they prepared them at the Board of Works for nothing? He did not
    1292
    suppose that that was the case. Now, the third aspect of the case was also a very serious one—namely, that the Department entered into a competition with the architects of the country. He did not object to model plans where model plans were required. The money of the State should not be given away unless the Department were satisfied that full value for the money was given, but it was quite another affair to promote an unjustifiable system of competition, and the Board of Works had, in fact, told the applicants not only would they prepare the plans, but that they would draw them so as to suit the views of the applicants. If they were paid for doing this it was a highly objectionable system, and it was an extension of that co-operative arrangement which had been so frequently denounced in that House. The officials who held office in connection with the State were well paid already, and they ought scarcely to be allowed to compete and drive out of the market gentlemen who were not paid by the State, who were struggling to obtain a living, and who themselves contributed to the taxes from which the salaries of the officials were paid. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if this system did exist, and, if it did, would some representation be made in regard to it with a view of putting a stop to it?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, that he had been asked a good many questions, and he was afraid that he should have to trouble the Committee for a few moments in answering them. There had been, he thought, some statements made under a misapprehension. He was exceedingly obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Gal-way (Colonel Nolan) for having pointed out to the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald) that the construction of works on these lines was not always very easy, and it was somewhat difficult to determine beforehand with absolute certainty that a particular plan would always be successful. He thought that the strictures which had been passed upon the Board of Works had been a little too sweeping. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) was evidently unaware that what he was contending for had been

    1293
    actually brought forward and agreed to. He understood the hon. Member to say that when a complaint was brought forward, as in the case of the Ballycotton Pier, there should be a perfectly independent inquiry by a competent engineer, thoroughly independent both of the locality and the Board of Works. The hon. Member was probably not aware that an independent inquiry had been agreed to by the Government, and, in conjunction with one of the most eminent engineers of the day, he had visited the Ballycotton Pier. They were now waiting for Mr. Wolfe Barry's Report on the subject. He disclaimed having entertained any intention or desire to withhold any information he possessed; but the Report had not yet been received; indeed, he had reason to believe that it was not yet written. When he received it, hon. Members interested in the subject would see it. The hon. Member for East Cork had left an impression on his mind, and he was afraid on the minds of the Committee, that there was an indisposition on the part of the Government to give the Report. The hon. Member went further, and said he had endeavoured to obtain information as to Mr. Barry's Report, and that, although he could obtain none, an official connected with the Board of Works boasted that he had seen the Report.
    MR. LANEsaid, the hon. Gentleman was labouring under a mistake. He had not said that the Report had been seen.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he could not understand how anybody could boast of reading the Report unless he had seen it. The hon. Gentleman certainly implied that he (Mr. Jackson) had kept back information which he possessed, or that he refused to give certain information which he had received. All he could say was, that he had not received Mr. Wolfe Barry's Report, and he had reason to believe that the Report itself had not yet been written. He trusted the hon. Member would remove from, his mind the misapprehension that there was any desire to keep the Report back. If he had received any Report the hon. Member should certainly have seen it before the present debate.
    MR. LANEsaid, he did not intend to suggest that the hon. Gentleman had kept back the Report, but at the end of two
    1294
    months he thought it ought to have been submitted, being of such great importance.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he would not pursue the subject further. As soon as the Report was received it should be submitted to the House. This complaint about the Irish Harbour Question was not the first that they had had. He would venture to remind the Committee that years ago similar complaints were made about the Board of Works, and an inquiry was ordered. An inquiry was conducted by an engineer of great eminence into the condition of certain piers in the county of Donegal, and he thought it was only due to the Board of Works that he should read one short extract from the Report of Mr. Thomas Stevenson, who was appointed to examine into the alleged unsound state of the works. Mr. Stevenson, after having gone carefully into the matter, said—
    "The result of my inquiry is to satisfy me that there has been nothing in the proceedings of the Board of Works or their engineer, or the Fishery Commissioners, with regard to these harbours to warrant the charges which have been brought against them. On the contrary, we are of opinion that they have carried out a number of harbour works in a short time, on an exposed part of the coast, with more than ordinary freedom from damage, and with such perfect skill as to be highly creditable to the Board, and to reflect credit also on the proceedings of any harbour authority in the country. I have also to say that I have particularly examined all the documents relating to the question, and there exists not a vestige of foundation for reflection on the honour and reputation of the Chief Engineer."
    That Report was made in 1885 in consequence of certain charges that were made at that time. In the Ballycotton case, so far from the Board of Works having, as the hon. Member for East Cork seemed to think, thrown any difficulties in the way of the examination of the pier by an independent engineer, either in the first instance or subsequently, he was able to assure the hon. Member that the Board themselves had said that they were perfectly willing and ready that the Treasury should take the opinion of any engineer they might think necessary. Therefore, so far from their having shirked investigation, it was only due to them to say that they invited the most searching investigation and the most complete criticism that could be passed in regard to this work.

    1295
    He felt that he was somewhat at a disadvantage in discussing at present the condition of this particular pier in the absence of Mr. Wolfe Barry's Report. What was the condition of the matter at the present moment? The Government, in answer to the representations which had been made, had consented that an inquiry should be made by an engineer of eminence. They had entrusted the inquiry to an eminent engineer, who had, he believed, gone minutely into every particular. He had visited the pier, and, by means of his own agent and assistant, had obtained every information from the Board of Works, which information the Board were perfectly willing to place at the disposal of Mr. Wolfe Barry, together with all the documents in their possession. As he had stated, Mr. Barry had visited the pier and, through his assistant, had obtained all the information that was necessary to enable him to form an opinion as to the condition of the pier. But he would not be in a position to discuss the questions raised by the hon. Member for East Cork until he had received that gentleman's Report. He promised that, when it was received, it should be presented to the House, and that every hon. Member should know what the real facts of the case were. Therefore, he thought that probably the Committee would not expect him to discuss further in detail the questions raised with reference to Ballycotton Pier. The inquiry would be searching and complete, and he was quite sure that, when they got Mr. Barry's Report, they would be in a much better position to judge, both as to the stability of the work and what alterations it might be necessary to make. The hon. Member for East Wicklow (Mr. W. J. Corbet) had brought forward the question of Arklow Pier and Harbour. In this case he was able to speak from some personal observation. He had visited Arklow with the engineer, and he had also visited Ballycotton; and he thought the hon. Member would agree with him that, so far, there had been no damage done to any portion of the work which had been carried out by the Board of Works. He was aware, having seen it himself when he was there, that where the old work was connected with the new some damage had been done, but it had not been done to the new work
    1296
    which had been carried out by the Board of Works, but to the old wall. The hon. Member seemed to lay blame upon the Board of Works for the design which had been carried out. He understood the hon. Member to complain that the design was not good, and urged that, to make the work complete, it was necessary to build the north groyne. But he was informed that that was the original suggestion in the design of the Board of Works, and it was not carried out because it was objected to by the people of the locality. From his own observation he could testify that a splendid piece of work had been carried out. There was no evidence that any portion of the work showed signs of giving way, and he thought the hon. Member might rest satisfied that, as far as the work had been carried out by the Board of Works, there was no fault to find with it. The people of the locality desired that the other portion of the work should be carried out. The hon. Member was probably aware that in the Act which authorized the construction of the pier it was distinctly laid down that if an expenditure exceeding £30,000 were incurred, it should be optional to raise another loan on condition that the Town Commissioners of Arklow should bear the responsibility for the additional loan. In this particular case there had been constructed blocks of concrete in excess of the work already carried out. He understood that those blocks of concrete represented a value of about £4,000, and it was estimated that if the additional portion were carried out it would cost another £4,000, making a total of £8,000. It had been already intimated to the Town Commissioners of Arklow that, if they would assume the responsibility for the £4,000 which it was necessary to spend, the Board of Works would be perfectly willing to carry out the remainder of this work. He confessed that Arklow, when he visited it, gave him the impression of being one of the most prosperous fishing districts he had seen. There were more evidences of life and energy, more boats, and a larger real fishing population than in any other district he had visited. The new work would, no doubt, be of great value in providing a sheltered harbour, and in protecting the work already done, which was not completed because the Local Authorities were not prepared

    1297
    to take a comparatively small burden upon their shoulders. The hon. Member for East Wicklow had brought forward the question of Greystones. He did not understand that there was any complaint at Greystones in regard to the quality of the work which had been done, but he thought it must be admitted that there was truth in the statement of the hon. Member that the shingle had shown a tendency to fill up the harbour. He was informed that this was due to the unusual prevalence of north-east winds on that part of the coast. When north-east winds prevailed there was a tendency to drive the shingle round the coast into the harbour. There had been no objection taken either to the design or to the quality of the work as far as regards the pier which had been built. As the hon. Member said, it probably did act, to some extent, in checking the shingle. It had been suggested that a short north groyne would prevent what was going on at present. But, in the opinion of the engineer of the Board of Works, that would not be effective, for, unless the north groyne were carried out to a sufficient distance, the sweep of the shingle would come round the groyne and could not possibly be got out again. He was told that in one week, when the wind shifted round to the opposite quarter, 7,000 tons of shingle were cleared out of the harbour. The Board of Works had, from time to time, taken careful note of the subject, and he did not deny that if the present action went on, and the shingle continued to fill the harbour, it might be necessary to consider some means of preventing the evil. Probably the hon. Member would know what the facts of the matter were better than he did, but, according to the information which had been supplied to him, there was no actual urgent necessity to take this course arising from any practical inconvenience, and there was a sufficiency of deep water to accommodate a much larger number of boats than now went into the harbour. He hoped the hon. Member and the Committee would be satisfied with the assurance that if actual inconvenience were proved, and that this action went on to such an extent as to cause practical inconvenience and interfere with the use of the harbour, he would bring the question before the Treasury. He trusted that that statement would be accepted
    1298
    as fairly satisfactory, and as an indication, at all events, that the Government desired to deal practically with any difficulty they found to exist. The difficulty was not confined to this particular harbour; but, as the hon. Member for East Cork had pointed out with much force, the difficulties connected with marine engineering of this kind were so great that it was not always easy to secure complete success. The hon. Member for West Belfast had asked him one or two questions in reference to the Estimate now under discussion. The hon. Member pointed out that the Solicitor to the Board had retired. The explanation was, shortly, this. There was at the end of last year, or towards the beginning of the present year—he thought in January—an alteration made, and what was usually known as a re-organization of the office. He was happy, however, to assure the Committee beforehand that in this particular case re-organization had led to economy of expenditure. In reality there had been a concentration of work, and the old Solicitor to the Board of Works had retired, so that his salary was now being saved. Under the old arrangement there was sometimes a confusion, and almost a collision, of authority in connection with some part of the work, such as the collection of the interest on loans and arrears of loans. He had gone into the question when he was in Dublin, and as the result of the investigation he had made a concentration of the work had been carried out. Mr. Coll had been made head of the office, and the assistant solicitor acted under Mr. Coll. The salaries were borne now on the Vote for Law Charges, Ireland. At any rate, as far as the present year was concerned, the money taken would be sufficient to pay the whole of the salaries.
    MR. SEXTONasked what would be the amount of the saving?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, the saving effected would be about £1,900 a-year, and he believed that not only was there a saving, but that the work of the Office would go on much more smoothly, and so far as the arrears of money out were concerned they would be put in a much better position. Certainly, the collection was now going on much more rapidly than heretofore, and the arrears, which had been showing a considerable tendency to increase, were now, he believed,

    1299
    showing a tendency in the opposite direction. The hon. Gentleman had also put a question in reference to the Inspectors. Possibly the criticism of the hon. Member might be justifiable, and more substantial information might have been given. As a matter of fact, the number of Inspectors had been reduced from 25 to 18, and the amount of the salaries thus saved represented the saving on the Estimate. The hon. Member also asked a question as to some complaint by the Institute of Architects, but he did not call to mind that any such complaint had come to the knowledge of the Treasury.
    MR. SEXTONasked how the reduction in the expenditure of the Office had been found to act practically?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, that practically it was found that all the work necessary to be done would be done with a largely decreased expenditure and a less number of officers. It was also found that, with a diminished amount of work, more systematic order was secured. In regard to the preparation of plans, he was given to understand that there was no foundation for the statement of the hon. Member that the Board of Works desired, in any sense, to compete with the Dublin architects. The object of the Board would be understood and appreciated by every Member of the Committee. There were in the Office, in connection with schools and houses of various sizes and numbers, model plans described by the hon. Member, but which were called in the Office standard plans. These standard plans represented school houses and other buildings of various sizes, and they had been adopted as the result of great experience and as a matter of economy. Many people made an application for them, because it was understood that these standard plans were supplied free of cost by the Board of Works. In cases where the plans required special adaptation to local circumstances, or where special requirements were needed to meet the local circumstances, he was informed that there was a practice, as the hon. Member suggested, under which plans were made by the Board of Works and given to applicants free.
    MR. SEXTONasked if the correspondence on the subject would be produced?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he had already stated that he was not aware of there having been any correspondence.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he knew that there had been a correspondence.
    MR. JACKSONremarked that it certainly had not been before him. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow him to inform himself upon the matter by making some inquiry.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he happened to know that there had been a correspondence between the Board of Works and the President of the Institute of Architects. He had read it himself.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he would rather inform himself upon the matter—first, whether there was a correspondence in existence, and, next, what it consisted of. He thought he had now answered all the questions which had been put to him, and he trusted that he had satisfied hon. Members. He made no complaint of the hon. Member for East Cork for having called attention to the case of the Ballycotton Pier. The hon. Member had simply discharged his duty in bringing the question before the Committee. He thought, however, that the Committee would agree that as far as the Government could meet the question fairly and properly they had done so.
    MR. LANEsaid, he could not find fault with the manner in which the hon. Gentleman had replied to the questions put to him in regard to the various matters which had been brought before the Committee. To a certain extent the answers were satisfactory; but he had to take exception to the fact that, while on the 27th of September last a letter had been received from the right hon. Gentleman's Department promising that an inquiry would be made into the complaints that had been made as to the stability of the Ballycotton Pier, they found themselves now, on the 6th of December, called upon to vote the expenses of the Department which had had the work under its control, just as wise as they were before, with the probability of having to wait for another 12 months before they got a Report. He felt bound to complain, and complain very strongly, that the right hon. Gentleman had not insisted upon Mr. Wolfe Barry making his Report during the past two months, so that there might, at any rate, have been some attempt at a reply to the

    1301
    strictures which had been made upon the proceedings of the Board of Works. No intimation had yet been conveyed as to when the Report would be received; but he trusted that as soon as it was received a copy of it would be placed in the hands of hon. Members. Unfortunately, no opportunity would be afforded for discussing the Report until this Vote was brought on again next year, nor would it be possible to ascertain what action the Treasury would take in the matter. In the absence of Mr. Wolfe Barry's Report, he asked the Secretary to the Treasury to say what the position of affairs was in regard to the Bally-cotton Pier, and whether he would undertake, on behalf of the Treasury, to give a simple guarantee that, no matter what might be the nature of the Report, the Treasury would give instructions that the pier should be put in an adequate state of repair in order to prevent it from becoming permanently injured, and by that means throwing a serious and heavy burden upon the shoulders of the ratepayers of the county of Cork in the event of Mr. Wolfe Barry siding with the Board of Works against the Grand Jury and their surveyor? Whatever the Grand Jury might feel inclined to do, he (Mr. Lane)should certainly advise them, whether Mr. Wolfe Barry's Report was in favour of the Board of Works or not, to refuse to take over a pier which even an ordinary layman could see was crumbling away. Although they might be technically liable for the maintenance of the pier, the Treasury, in common justice, ought not to compel them to take it over. The hon. Gentleman, when he paid a visit to Ballycotton, must have seen the fissures which existed, and, therefore, he hoped the Treasury would come to the rescue of the Local Authorities, and make up for the deficiencies of the Board of Works in not having secured that the pier should be completed satisfactorily and handed over in a proper and sound condition. As there was to be no opportunity afforded for seeing Mr. Wolfe Barry's Report, they ought, he thought, to ask for a simple guarantee to this effect from the Treasury.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, it would be obvious to the Committee that he ought not to give the guarantee asked for by the hon. Member. Certainly no such guarantee could be given before the
    1302
    Treasury had the whole of the facts before them. But the hon. Member was wrong in contemplating that he would have no opportunity of again raising the question for 12 months. He hoped that the opportunity would be afforded within the next three or four months. They were now in the month of December, and the Leader of the House had stated that he hoped next year to take the Estimates pretty early; so that the hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of discussing the matter that interested him before many months had elapsed.
    MR. LANEremarked that the pier might be blown away in the meantime.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, he had no doubt that the discussion of these local matters might be irksome to English and Scotch Members. It was certainly ridiculous that the time of such an Assembly should be occupied with matters which concerned Irishmen only, and ought to be discussed in an Irish Legislative Assembly. It was, however, the result of the policy of Parliament, and he could not help it. On the other hand, it was humiliating for the Irish Members to come to Westminster, and year after year appeal to an English and Scotch Parliament on matters quite foreign to their Parliamentary interest and knowledge. The Secretary to the Treasury had made a defence of the Board of Works, and had quoted their testimony as to the general capacity of an engineer who had examined certain marine works in the county of Donegal.
    MR. JACKSON: The Report of Mr. Stevenson had reference to 22 piers.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, that those 22 piers were situated in the county of Donegal. Even in that case it was difficult to get over the fact that every year, for the last 20 or 30, before the Irish Parliamentary Party were heard of, there were constant complaints from all parts of Ireland about the Board of Works. He hoped the Committee would understand that these debates were not initiated from political motives. The interposition of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald) in the debate showed that he was correct in this remark. It was certainly humiliating to find that when all parties in Ireland were united upon these local questions—about which they were bound to know more than anybody else, and

    1303
    when an hon. Member opposite like the hon. Member for Cambridge joined them—it was humiliating to find that they were compelled to come there year after year and appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury without obtaining the slightest satisfaction. He was certainly astonished to see the hon. and gallant Member for North Galway standing up in his place to support the Board of Works. When the Piers and Harbours Act was passed a few years ago persons connected with the harbour of Rush, in the county of Dublin, subscribed nearly £1,000 in order that they might avail themselves of the grant made for the construction of piers and harbours in Ireland in that year. But because the locality was not able to subscribe the full amount of £ 1,000, and only managed to raise £800, the Piers and Harbours Commission of that day, whose functions were now discharged by the Board of Works, passed them over, and made a most inadequate distribution of the money, giving it to localities which had made no such effort as that which had been made by the people of Rush. Of course it was of no use to cry over spilt milk, and, without complaining of what had been done in the past, he thought it was right to call attention to the fact that the people of Rush still maintained their harbour, and that the sum originally collected was still intact. Some large local proprietors had wished to withdraw their subscriptions, but he had advised the people to stick to the money and see that it was only devoted to the purpose for which it was originally intended. He called attention to the matter because he wished to show that there were means, in this case, of satisfying the demands of the locality without drawing upon the Imperial Exchequer for a farthing. The fund originally came out of the Irish Church surplus, and, therefore, he made no apology whatever for asking that a portion of it should be applied to this purpose. It involved no Vote of money by Parliament that would come out of the pocket of the British taxpayer. He knew that the fund was comparatively exhausted, hut, according to a Return for the year 1888–9, repayments of loans would be coming in during the financial year to the amount of about £3,000 or £4,000; and, if that were so, he would ask the Government to consider the case of the people of
    1304
    Rush, who, to a certain extent, had been cheated out of their rights two or three years ago, notwithstanding the great efforts which had been made in the locality. It would, in his opinion, only be an act of justice to the people of Rush to give them this £3,000 or £4,000 that was now available from the repayment of loans advanced to other localities two or three years ago. He had, however, a still more important matter to the taxpayer generally and the House of Commons to bring under the notice of the Committee. Indeed, he had to call attention to a circumstance which looked very like a charge of corruption against the Board of Works. In the county of Kerry there was a lady named Miss Lucy Thompson. She had acted as the guardian of the property of certain minors for some years, and had been proved by the Land Courts to be a rack-renter. He was speaking, not of his own personal knowledge, but on the authority of a gentleman who had had exceptional opportunities of becoming acquainted with the facts of the case. Miss Lucy Thompson—according to this gentleman—was not only a rack-renter, but had done something even worse. A short time ago this lady obtained a sum of £400 from the Board of Works for a piece of land at Tralee, about two acres in extent, for the erection of a lighthouse, or some other purpose. It was land upon which, as it had been described to him, it was impossible to feed a snipe. He did not know how many years' purchase she got according to the rate allowed by the Ashbourne Act. The bargain, however, was not concluded under that Act; but he presumed it amounted to at least 40 years' purchase, and, instead of £400, £100 was the outside sum this lady ought to have received from any purchaser. The information in regard to the transaction had been obtained quite by accident, and the fact that the existence of such a fraudulent transaction was unknown suggested to him that other things of the same kind might have been going on, and that the British taxpayer might have been swindled of a very large sum of money by the Board of Works. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury might not be able to explain the matter that night, but now that he had the facts before him he would probably-cause inquiry to

    1305
    be made. He gave the hon. Gentleman fair warning that when the Estimates were next under consideration the whole of this case would be brought up, and an answer would have to be given to the very serious charge he now preferred. He had another charge to bring in reference to this lady. She appeared to have obtained loans, at different times, for the improvement of her property, from the Board of Works, and, adopting the usual practice of Irish landlords, Miss Thompson had failed to repay the instalments. The way she had got out of her obligations was very curious, and unless some explanation could be given the whole transaction, he thought, was most destructive to the reputation of the Board of Works. Having obtained one loan, this lady, when the time for repayment came, obtained another. Failing to pay the instalments on one, she wrote up to the Board of Works, who sent down an official—he was prepared to state the name of the official if necessary—who altered the prices which had been agreed to and fixed by the County Surveyor of Kerry, and allowed her to put to her credit the cost of certain improvements at an increased sum. A pliable Board of Works sent down an equally pliable official to survey the improvements, and the difference in the estimate was added by the Board. If these statements were true, he thought the Committee would agree with him that nothing short of a scandalous fraud had been perpetrated on the public by this lady in collusion with the Board of Works. Passing from that subject, they had heard that night that the office of Solicitor to the Board had been abolished, and that £1,900 had been saved in the Department by a system of concentration of business. He thought more could be done in that way. The salary of a Chief Inspector was £500, and of a Chief Examiner £400 a-year. He wanted to know whether both these gentlemen did not perform exactly the same functions, and whether one would not be sufficient to do the work 10 times over? He had heard that two gentlemen, pronounced to be perfectly competent to discharge their duties, had been dismissed, while another, whose dismissal had been recommended by his superiors on the ground of incompetency, had been retained. He con-
    1306
    sidered that the charge was a very serious one, and, if there was no answer to it, the only conclusion in the minds of the Irish people would be that the partizanship which was displayed in purely political Departments of the State was extended in Ireland to every other Department. Certainly the discontent and dissatisfaction which were now expressed in regard to the Government of Ireland would become intensified by these disgraceful transactions. There was another matter to which he also desired to call attention. He wanted to know what rule there was in the Board of Works, and in Dublin Castle generally, as to the participation of officials of the Crown in public and political movements? When those English strollers—the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington)—went over to Dublin to excite the loyalty of the citizens they were entertained at a very select banquet, at which all the chief officials of the Board of Works, except one, were present. General Sankey, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Soady were there. He was not certain about Mr. Le Fanu. Not only were they present at the banquet, but they signed the highly partizan address presented to these two English strollers. There might be two opinions as to whether prominent officials of the Crown in Ireland ought to take part in political movements; but, for his own part, he considered that the present unfortunate position of Ireland—when so much suspicion attached to the action of Government officials—necessitated the abstention of all officials from political movements. He did not think that such abstention should prevail in England or in Ireland when once a normal condition of things was established. But, as matters stood at present, let all abstain or all be allowed to participate; but there must not be one rule for the Tories in Ireland and another for the Nationalists. He claimed that if Mr. Roberts, Mr. Soady, General Sankey, and others of the Orange fraternity in the pay of the Government were permitted to demonstrate in favour of the Government, that Nationalists who were in the pay of the Government should be allowed to do the same thing. He challenged the Government to say that

    1307
    all Government officials were to be allowed to participate in political movements in Ireland, or that all should abstain. Either of the two courses would satisfy him, but he warned the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that if one of these principles only was allowed to be put in practice, he would never cease to draw the attention of Parliament to the scandal of permitting Members of the Tory Party to display their political sympathies with the Government, while the Nationalists in the pay of the Government were not allowed to do the same thing.
    DR. TANNERsaid, he thanked the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) for having called attention to the Ballycotton Pier. His hon. Friend pressed for a distinct intimation from the Government as to what was to be done in connection with the effective condition of the pier since the visit of Mr. Wolfe Barry. He happened to be present when the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury visited Ballycotton, and he had called the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the remains of the old pier, which protruded into the newly-made harbour. He showed the hon. Gentleman a fishing boat at half-tide, about 100 yards or less from the entrance, hanging on by its tail, a sort of thing they might expect to see in the Zoological Gardens, but not a very desirable item in a newly-constructed harbour. He thought that the more hon. Members considered the subject the more ready would they be to subscribe to the truth of the old adage that "when doctors differ the patients die." So, also, when engineers fell out the fishing boats got stranded, and the unfortunate people for whom the works had been constructed got stranded too. He trusted that the Government would promise that some experiment should be made in order to see whether the remains of the old pier could be removed or not. Owing to remonstrances which he (Dr.Tanner) had made, a certain sum of money had been spent in the removal of the pier, but as yet it had not been entirely removed. The question to which the hon. Member for Cambridge had called attention had been judiciously shelved by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. The new method of stilling the troubled waters was to pour oil upon them, and
    1308
    the hon. Gentleman never rose to reply in a debate in which material points had been raised without reminding him of the cask of oil that was judiciously spilt in calming the troubled, waves. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would direct his great intelligence to the various subjects which had been brought under his notice. He would not enter into the question of the structure or construction of the new pier, but he would confine himself to inquiring whether the remaining portion of the old pier could not be removed. That was all he bad to say about Ballycotton Pier; but there were one or two other subjects on which he desired to say a word. In the first place, he held in his hand a communication which had reached him from a gentleman who had pressed forward this business—the Roman Catholic clergyman at Ballycotton, who said that the people of fiallycotton wished to have assurances that Mr. Wolfe Barry's survey of the inner harbour would be laid before the House of Commons, and whether the stone and rubble used in the construction of the works had been washed away, leaving one-half of the old pier dry. The pier at Rosscarbery was another of the monuments of public incapacity which strewed the Irish Coast. They already paid an Inspector of Ancient Monuments, but if the Board of Works were permitted to continue their present action unchecked, it would be necessary to increase his salary or add to the staff. Fortunately, there was no harbour in the part of the county which he represented, but he had visited many of the harbours around the coast, and most of them were in an unsound and unsatisfactory condition. When he last visited Rosscarbery Pier, there were four colliers lying down at an old pier which had been condemned years ago. It was in consequence of the old pier not being considered equal to the requirements of the harbour that a new pier was erected at a cost of £4,299; but so badly had it been constructed that solid blocks of concrete had dropped out into the channel, and the colliers were obliged to discharge their cargoes at the old condemned pier, and the people, as a result, experienced great difficulty in getting a livelihood. He was afraid that these matters would never be properly attended to until the Irish people had a Parliament of their own in which

    1309
    they could discuss them. He would further like to call attention to the condition of the people of Achill Island. It was one of the poorest districts in Ireland, and if there were any people in the world for whom something ought to be done it was these unfortunate people. They had many troubles and privations to contend with, and their life was one long struggle from year end to year end, notwithstanding the great harvest of the sea which lay at their very door. But they were without means and appliances, and it was a scandal and a disgrace to the country that something was not done to improve their condition. In a visit which he paid to the locality in company with the hon. Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy), they had to go by means of a small boat from the Island to Achill Beg, and then take another boat, which they found it extremely difficult to get launched into Clear Bay. The passage was so dangerous that no boat could pass from Achill Island to Clear Bay except at full tide. No one who was unacquainted with the facts of the case could fully realize the enormous dangers and terrible difficulties these unfortunate people had to encounter in their endeavour to obtain a livelihood; it was, therefore, greatly to be regretted that the steps hitherto taken to promote their welfare had been so ill chosen. He wished to call attention also to the harbour in Newcastle in County Down, about which he had over and over again raised complaints in that House, which complaints, he considered, demanded attention, and that there should be some practical solution of the question relating to these harbours, because unless this was done the want of confidence would be increased among the people, owing to the mode of action which had always been characteristic of the Board of Works in Ireland. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman, with his practical power of dealing with these matters, would give them his kind attention.
    MR. GILHOOLYsaid, he rose to refer to the unsatisfactory pier accommodation at Schull.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was not within the competency of the Committee to discuss on that Vote the business of the Board of Works, but only the action of the Board.
    MR. GILHOOLYsaid, that he had already drawn attention to the subject of the action of the Board. In the Harbour of Schull had been captured in the last year over 1,000,000 mackerel, and he pointed out that each mackerel boat required 10 feet of water, but that there was only a depth of seven feet, the consequence of which was that the fish had to be brought from the vessels in boats to the pier, which was, of course, a great disadvantage to the fishermen. It also had the effect of prejudicing the sale, because it caused the buyers to give a smaller price for the fish than they would have done if they were landed expeditiously. Again, over 250,000 mackerel had been salted and cured, and sent from Schull to America within the last few months.
    THE CHAIRMANasked the hon. Gentleman to point out in what way the Board of Works was liable to criticism under this head.
    MR. GILHOOLYsaid, the pier had been very badly constructed, and it was a great disadvantage to the locality. He would only say that the answer which the hon. Gentleman gave was that the pier had been handed over to the County of Cork, and that, therefore, it was impossible either for him or the Treasury to deal with it. He now wished to ask whether there was any remedy in the case of badly constructed piers and harbours, and if they were to believe that every attempt to develop the resources of Ireland would be met with a statement that the Treasury had no power to deal with the matter, and that the pier had been taken in hand by the county? Another matter to which he desired to call attention was the advancing of loans to tenants for the improvement of their lands. It was almost impossible for any tenant who owed 12 months' rent to his landlord, and whom the landlord had a spleen against, to get any money under the Act. A tenant on an estate in Kildare divided his land between his two sons; each of the sons applied for a grant, and the younger of the sons having voted against the nominee of the landlord, the landlord interfered to prevent the Board of Works granting the loan. The father, who was the lessee, wrote to the Board of Works saying that he was perfectly agreeable that the son should get the

    1311
    money; yet, owing to the influence of the landlord, through his bailiff, the money was not advanced. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, if there was sufficient security, the money would be advanced to the people of Ireland for the purpose intended? He also pointed out that the Royal Commission had recommended works to be done on two piers on the coast, and he asked when that would be carried out?
    MR. M'CARTANsaid, he had to thank his hon. Friend for calling attention to the pier at Newcastle. The pier was constructed in 1854 by the Board of Works, and it was then that the Grand Jury of the County sent down their surveyor.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is speaking of a fact which shows that the matter is not relevant to this Vote—namely, that the work was done by the Board of Works 30 years ago.
    MR. M'CARTANsaid, he wished to point out that the present state of the pier was both dangerous to navigators and in a bad state for the unfortunate men who had to make their living there. He asked the hon. Gentleman if he would send some persons to make an independent inquiry in order that some remedy might be found for the present state of affairs? He had no doubt that if such a person were sent he would report to the Board of Works that the pier required improvement, owing to its having been constructed in a very faulty way.
    MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, he wished to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to the pier at Ballycotton. He held in his hand a letter from the Treasury, dated 27th September. In consequence of the receipt of that letter by the Secretary to the Grand Jury of Cork, a visit was made to Ballycotton Pier. An independent engineer made an inspection, and the Committee were now asked to wait for three months longer after the Recess, and when the Session was over they were told that this independent engineer's Report would be forthcoming. The request he had to make to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was that he would promise that the Report should be produced before the Session was over. The hon. Gentleman wrote the letter on the 26th of September, ap-
    1312
    pointing the 6th October as the date of inquiry and investigation, and, two months having elapsed, there had been sufficient time for the engineer to make his Report and to bring it forward for the satisfaction of those concerned. Considering that a few points only were to be reported upon, it was too great a trial of the patience of hon. Members to put them off for three months longer. Let the Committee remember that the pier itself might pass away, as many other piers had done, before the Report reached their hand, in consequence of the winter storms and heavy seas which might prevail during the time. Hon. Members said that the pier had not been built according to specification; that the blocks originally designed to be five tons, and arranged so as to keep out the water, had been changed to blocks of 50 tons each and that the water now came in; they also complained that the filling should have been of hard stone, but that it was at best soft stone, and that there was about 1,000 tons of soft clay used. The clerk of the works had reported to Mr. Barry that 1,000 tons of stone rubble were never touched at all. These were the few heads under which this engineer was to make his Report, and he did not think it unreasonable to ask that the Report should be expedited, so that the Committee might have information upon this interesting matter. That was all that he had to say upon the subject, and he trusted that the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would give a satisfactory answer upon it.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, the hon. Member had complained that the Report of the engineer might have been prepared and placed in the hands of hon. Members before that time. But he thought he himself had furnished the very best possible reason why they ought not to hurry the production of the Report. If there was one point more than another which it was desirable to clear up, and on which they ought to have the most reliable evidence, it was as to whether the movement in the pier was going on or not. Now, he ventured to submit to the Committee that nothing but time could ascertain that fact. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of another three months elapsing, and about it being possible that in that time the pier might have passed away, but surely if

    1313
    such a contingency was likely to occur, and whether that were so or not, it would not be affected by the production of the Report. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman's fears would not be realized, and it was for the very reason that they might have other storms, and also as a matter of justice to the Board of Works, that he ventured to point out that the matter should receive the most careful consideration, so that, when the Report was received, it should be based upon the most minute investigation to determine whether there was any movement going on or not. He was sure it would be very much to the advantage of every one concerned that this question should be settled definitely, if possible, once for all. Now, with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), he did not think anyone would accuse the hon. Member of lack of oratorical power; he had referred to the old pier, and he (Mr. Jackson) ought perhaps to have made reference to his observations on that subject a little while ago, but the matter had slipped his memory at the moment. The question of Ballycotton Pier was one of those referred to Mr. Barry. As a matter of fact there were two questions—first, as to whether the pier was to be removed in accordance with the specification, and, secondly, as to whether this was desirable.
    DR. TANNERsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman was wrong in making that statement, because everything had been settled. £30,000 were advanced in order to remove the old pier, and still the complaint was made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald), one of the hon. Gentleman's own supporters, that although this money had been spent there remained a serious obstruction to navigation.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, certain work was alleged to have been done, and one of the inquiries would be as to whether that work had been carried out. The hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly) had asked him a question with regard to the other pier referred to. That pier was not really under the Board of Works; it was one of those piers handed over to the Grand Jury a long time ago; he was afraid that he had not got the date. However, he might say that quite recently an examination of the pier had been made, and it was
    1314
    found at the time that some slight amount of damage had been done. That damage had been remedied, and he had it on authority that the work was now in order and perfectly substantial. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. M'Cartan) asked whether he would cause inquiry to be made with regard to the pier at Newcastle. That pier was long ago constructed and handed over at the time by the Board of Works, who had now no responsibility in connection with it. Whether it was desirable to build a harbour at Newcastle or not was of course a question on which he could express no opinion. If it were necessary to have a harbour there it would be of course open to take steps for the purpose in the district as in any other district. The hon. Member for West Cork had asked him a question with regard to loans to tenants. If the hon. Member would supply him with the name of the tenant to whom he referred he did not for one moment hesitate to say that he would inquire into the facts in connection with the case. With regard to Schull Harbour he stood in the same position as to the harbour at Newcastle, because he was under the impression that it had been handed over to the Grand Jury in 1854. It was, in fact, transferred to the Grand Jury on the 29th June of that year. Of course, at the time when it was taken over it was examined, and he thought that so long a period as 30 years having elapsed it was hardly possible for him to answer questions with regard to it at a moment's notice. He was afraid, as far as the Board of Works was concerned, that the matter having passed out of their hands, it was not in their power to spend any more money upon it. It might be desirable to have another pier constructed, but that was not a question for the Board of Works. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) he pointed out that there had been a reduction of 10 on the staff, but he thought the hon. Gentleman was misinformed as to Mr. Manning having been incompetent to discharge his duties.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, he did not speak of him as being incompetent, but that he was reported to be incompetent, and dismissed on that ground.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House

    1315
    (Mr. W. H. Smith) had already expressed his opinion with regard to Civil servants attending political meetings, and he (Mr. Jackson) hoped that the time would never come when men occupying the position of Civil servants would lose their rights of citizenship.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, he thought he had expressed himself clearly to the effect that in Great Britain the Government of the country being in a normal state, there was no reason whatever why any man serving the country should be deprived of the rights of citizenship. But he had shown that in Ireland Tory officials of the Government were permitted to do things which the Nationalists employed by the Government were not permitted to do. He had stated as a notorious fact that men like General Sanky, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Soady could attend Unionist meetings and Unionist banquets, whereas it was known to every man in Ireland, and was a fact incapable of contradiction, that any Nationalist who ventured to do the same thing would be instantly dismissed from the Service. A short time ago a Nationalist teacher was sent about his business for having hinted his political opinions. The hon. Gentleman had not given the Committee an assurance that what the men he had named were permitted to do would be allowed to be done by Nationalists. He repeated what he had previously said, that the very next time he saw Mr. Roberts, Mr. Soady, or General Sanky, or any other official of the Government in Ireland on an Unionist platform, and taking part in Unionist proceedings, he would call attention to the fact, especially if any Nationalist was harassed and eventually driven out of his position for the same thing.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he had only wished to make it clear that he did not want to go into the question whether Civil servants ought to attend political meetings or not. That was a question which he thought ought to be set at rest by the Leader of the House.
    DR. TANNERsaid, there was another item included in this Tote which would require a certain amount of consideration. For his own part he thought he could expect hon. Gentleman opposite to listen to this matter with the attention which it deserved. He referred to the preservation of ancient monuments. A
    1316
    certain amount of money was passed for this purpose, but he did not consider that Parliament obtained an adequate return for the amount so expended. They had here an Inspector of ancient monuments under the Act of Parliament. This gentleman received a sum of £50 this year and the same amount last year in addition to a salary of £200. What he would say in connection with this officer was, that apparently he was sent down to a district where it suited the convenience of certain individual landed proprietors, and the result was that the major portion of Irish National monuments, of which his countrymen were reasonably proud, were allowed to go to wreck and ruin while the number of small and minor articles of antiquity were preserved to gratify the taste of certain proprietors of the soil. This proceeding was neither just nor honest. They received very little consideration from an expenditure which was literally a National expenditure; they were called upon to pay this money, and if this Vote were passed in an Irish deliberative Assembly he was certain that his countrymen, being proud of matters in the past, would pay considerable attention to the question of the preservation of ancient monuments. But it was not so at the present time; these points were habitually slurred over in a Committee of Supply, when there were, perhaps, occasionally only two or three Gentlemen occupying an official position seated on the Treasury Bench. He contended, that when they kept up an official Inspector, he eared not who he might be, that at any rate the historical remnants which were still in the old Town of Athenry should not be allowed to perish. He had had the opportunity of showing two Members of the Conservative Party over these grand old relics of the historical past, and these Gentlemen were just as much grieved as he that nothing had been done to preserve them as they would have been preserved in other countries. When they were called upon to pass considerable sums of money in that House, he maintained that they ought to receive an adequate return for it, and surely the inspection of these historical remains did not take up very much time or give very much trouble. He sincerely hoped that before the Vote was passed they would get some information from the hon. Gentleman the

    1317
    Secretary to the Treasury, who, he always knew, took time by the forelock and threw oil upon the troubled waters, which would lead them to the belief that something would be done in connection with this old City of the Kings in Connaught. He had heard many complaints from Catholic and Protestant Clergymen about the want of attention paid to that very historical city, and he sincerely hoped that some definite assurance would be given by the hon. Gentleman that this matter should receive the attention which it deserved. But there was another item to which he desired to refer. He saw there were three surveyors of buildings in Cork with minimum salaries of £400, increasement £20, and maximum £500. The increase under the head of salaries, however, was a very small matter and he would not dwell upon it. But he thought he knew nearly everybody in the City of Cork, and, until he cast his eye over the Estimate presented to the House, he was not aware that in that city such an official existed as a surveyor of public buildings. If such an official did exist in Cork he would like to know what he bad to do. He was to a certain extent acquainted with all the public buildings in Cork, and the major portion of them were undoubtedly under the care of the Municipality. Now, in that case, if this official existed to take care of any buildings in Cork the office must be a very small one and quite unworthy of public consideration, for which reason he thought that the sooner it was done away with the better.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he was not aware that such an officer existed; he saw nothing in reference to Cork on the Estimates.
    DR. TANNERsaid, there was the name of A. T. Williams, surveyor of public buildings, Cork.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, in that case, he supposed that he was stationed in Cork. The hon. Gentleman must see that it was quite impossible for him to give an answer to all these details, and he would probably understand that the Office of Public Works in Ireland extended to the charge of all public works, and that it was necessary to appoint men in different districts. That, he thought, would be the explanation of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member asked him some questions on the
    1318
    subject of ancient monuments. All he could say upon that point was, that if he would give him the particulars in such form as could be communicated by him to the Board of Works, he would do so, and then, if they came within the scope of the Act of Parliament dealing with such buildings, he was sure that the Board of Works would give the matter every possible attention.
    MR. HARRISsaid, there was very many subjects on which he wished to dwell in connection with the duties of the Board of Works; but he would confine himself to local matters. He feared that the Board of Works neglected the general interest in their desire to please. In connection with the River Sugg there were some important drainage works going on; but he had remarked, in connection with this work, that the Board of Works had been wanting in knowledge, or in that amount of capacity which it was necessary for Public Bodies to have established in connection with such a scheme of drainage as this. The original estimate made for the drainage of this river was £103,000. It was the duty of the engineers of the Board of Works to see that the amount of money specified, or agreed upon between the Committee of the Sugg drainage and the Government, should be, at all events, somewhat approximate to the amount of money required for the finishing of the works. They found, however, that this £103,000 were expended, and that a further sum of £60,000 or £70,000 were required for completing the works. Then, he thought, the Board of Works should also have regard to the necessity of keeping in repair such works as they had given their consent to. As regarded the River Sugg, in addition to what he had already said, he held it to be the duty of the Board of Works to take care that the industries along the river were not interfered with too largely. There were several undertakings on the river which used to give valuable employment—such as weirs and mills—and although they had been of great ad-advantage to the locality they had been ruined. No doubt the owners had been compensated for the loss of their property; but the general public suffered by the removal of the weirs. He should think, as a matter of public interest, it should be the duty of the Board of

    1319
    Works to see that in the matter of these contracts between Drainage Boards and the owners of property no injury should be sustained by the general public. There was one other point he should like to touch upon. There had been a large amount of money spent under the Board of Works, not in carrying on arterial drainage works, but works of a minor class. These works, especially in County Galway, or that part of County Galway he represented, year after year—works which had been accomplished at very great expense—were being closed up, and were becoming useless. It would seem as though supervision on the part of the Board of Works had altogether ceased. No doubt the Grand Juries in some cases might have taken over these works; but he thought that care should be taken, before such works as were necessary for the reclamation of the land were handed over to the Grand Juries, or any other Body, to see that they were in proper repair. Therefore, he complained, first of all, that the Board of Works did not see that the estimates put in were such as would cover the expenses of the works; and, secondly, he complained that the Board of Works allowed such industries as milling and fishing to be affected, and did not take sufficient precautions to preserve them. Thirdly, he complained that minor works of drainage were generally in certain districts, and were maintained in such a manner as to allow them to fall into decay. Drainage works required to be attended to from time to time. The water-courses required keeping open, and everything in the shape of obstruction required moving. He should be glad if the Government would take these points into their consideration, and would endeavour to remedy the deficiencies on the part of the Board of Works to which he alluded.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he desired to signalize this occasion by saying a word in favour of the Board of Works for a satisfactory procedure which he thought hitherto had been almost unknown. He desired to return his best thanks to the Board for what they had done in relation to the bridge across the Liffey in connection with the new Vandal railway which was being made in Dublin. The Board had, for the first time, done an admirable service
    1320
    to the public of Dublin in protecting the Custom House from the railway Goths. He desired, as a member of the public, to return his best thanks to Mr. Soady, of the Board of Works, for the letter that gentleman had addressed to the railway people, and the care he had taken of the interests of the public in respect of the Customs House. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) sincerely trusted that this gentleman and the Board of Works would be induced to continue their opposition to the atrocious structure which the railways had obtained permission from Parliament to erect, and he trusted the Board would not be intimidated from their position of protecting one of the remaining beauties of the City of Dublin, built by the last Irish Parliament, notwithstanding any clamour which might be raised against their action. The Board were supported in the position they had taken up by all the intelligence of Dublin. He hoped they would stick to their point; and if newspaper rings, or railway rings, or any other rings of capitalists endeavoured to induce them, in the interest of what was called trade or commerce, to sanction the unsightly and brutal structure that the Railway Companies proposed to erect, he hoped they would maintain their position and insist, as they had power to insist, themselves or through the Board of Trade, upon the structure being made an ornamental one. He was stronger in his opposition in this matter as he observed that this Rail way Company, having come before Parliaments 1884, and having come twice since, would have to resort to Parliament for another Bill in the coming year. Certainly if the Board of Works did not stand to their guns when the Bill was before the House, he (Mr. T. M. Healy) and his would have some general observations to make all round.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    DR. TANNERsaid, he rose for the last time to try and get some definite assurance from the Government with regard to the harbour to which attention had already been called. The matter was a small one, and he did not wish to detain the Committee for one moment longer than was absolutely necessary; but he desired to get some

    1321
    definite assurance on the subject. Would the Board of Works see to the removal of the pier?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, as he had already stated, if it was necessary in the interests of the harbour to make a further removal, the work would be carried out. At all events, if the harbour was found to be in an unsatisfactory condition the whole matter would be most carefully inquired into.
    Question put and agreed to.
    (2.) £2,010, to complete the sum for the Record Office, Ireland.
    (3.) £4,747, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Ireland.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he did not see any Representative of the Irish Office in the House, but he desired to ask a question with regard to this Vote. The Registrar General was responsible for the criminal and judicial statistics of Ireland, but in his Report he said that, following the lines adopted in connection with the Scotch criminal and judicial statistics, the Report he had been in the habit of returning would not be furnished in future. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) desired to have some information on this matter. The change proposed was a very serious one, from a statistical point of view. The judicial statistics of England which the Irish Report had been endeavouring, since 1883, to follow, were a very complete, intelligent, and valuable statement of the whole of their criminal and judicial expenditure. The Scotch Report was an extremely unsatisfactory one. Last year he called attention to this Scotch Report, and expressed regret that in Scotland they did not follow the English example. In Scotland they simply put down on the Table of the House a large mass of undigested statistics, whereas in England and Ireland an intelligent summary was given of the whole of the statistics in a short and tangible shape. Now, he wanted to know upon what ground they were to be deprived of the Irish Report? Who was the authority in Dublin Castle who had decided that Parliament should be deprived of this Return which it had been in the habit of receiving for many years past? What was the ground upon which this omission was founded?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he was afraid he was not able to give the right hon. Gentleman complete information as regarded this Vote, but, so far as he knew, this information had been supplied hitherto from Dublin Castle. He was afraid that what had been done in this case was due to one of those many attempts—which the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he knew, did not appreciate—to save £100 in what was called duplicate work. If the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into the matter he would find that that was the fact. This £100 had been paid to the Registrar General for duplicating important information supplied from Dublin Castle, but if the right hon. Gentleman desired it, he (Mr. Jackson) would ascertain definitely the facts of the case, and give the right hon Gentleman all the information in his power.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the duplicate consisted not so much as the table of statistics, but of an intelligent résumé. These résumés, with which they had been supplied for some years, could not be altered without the assent of Parliament. The Government seemed to be desirous to change the method of producing very valuable statistics. When the Scotch Votes came on he would ask a question in regard to Scotland. He submitted that in the present state of politics in Ireland, these statistics were most valuable, and he would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to say that no change would be made in this matter without the consent of Parliament.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he could only promise to ascertain whether there would be any difficulty in continuing the Return as supplied in the past. If there were none, of course the Return should be presented in the old shape. As he had stated—but he was only speaking from memory on the point—a sum of about £100, which had hitherto been paid for duplicating this information and putting it into proper form, would be saved by the arrangement proposed. It had seemed to the officials unnecessary to continue that payment. He (Mr. Jackson) was not aware that any statement had been made on the subject in the Report to which the right hon. Gentleman had called attention, although he remembered that the question was one

    1323
    which had come before him with the result he had stated.
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, he had listened to this conversation with very great surprise. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had raised a point of the greatest importance. He was not aware that it was intended to limit the extent of the information given to the House from year to year with regard to the criminal statistics of Ireland. The statistics were compiled by Dr. Hancock in recent years.
    MR. JACKSON: I beg pardon; they were not compiled by me, but information was sent up to the Registrar-General.
    MR. SEXTON: Yes, and duplicated. Those who were connected with Irish public affairs found it necessary to render themselves familiar with these statistics; and at a time when Ireland was subjected to a special coercion law it was highly important that full information should be in the hands of the public with regard to criminal and judicial statistics. Ho, therefore, thought it meet that the form of this Return should not be altered. It would be a great mistake, in order to effect a paltry saving of £100, to alter the form of the Return, and prevent the Irish Members and the Irish public having that information which was necessary in discussing Public Business. If the form of this Return were altered, it would enable the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to pursue with success the policy of evasion and suppression of facts which he had lately pursued in that House. It was necessary that the Vote should be postponed. He (Mr. Sexton) had not been aware that any great change as that proposed was in contemplation. He would ask the Government to postpone this arrangement until they made up their minds as to whether or not the Return should be altered.
    MR. DILLON: asked, whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury did not intend giving any reply as to this Vote—as to whether it should not be postponed until he was able to give the House definite information?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped the Government would be able to say something. It would facilitate Business if they did. There was an old-established form of Return which had been constantly given to Parliament, and, therefore, it would always be a grave objection, when they had a well-known form existing from year to year, to depart from that form. That was the case in regard to all classes of Returns. If the Government would say that in future they would issue the same form of Return as they had issued in the past, everyone would be satisfied.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that of course if the statistics had been given habitually for years in one form, and there was a desire that they should be continued in that form, they would be so continued. His hon. Friend near him, the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), was anxious to effect any economies he could in this and in other Departments, but if statistics had been given, he could assure the Committee there was no desire on the part of the Government to discontinue them. There could be no desire on the part of the Government to make any change in the form. He would inquire into the matter, and if he found that there had been a discontinuance of a Return which any section of the House desired, no consideration of expenditure should stand in the way of its being resumed.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not know what objection there was or could be taken to the production of the Return in the old form, but it was essential that this information should be at hand.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will take care that all the usual information is given.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) £5,973, to complete the sum for Valuation and Boundary Survey in Ireland.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding£32,665 (including a Supplementary sum of £10,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come

    1325
    in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1889, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I desire under this Vote, which I believe to be an appropriate Vote, to call attention to a matter to which I confess I attach the most supreme importance, and that is the principle upon which criminal prosecutions are conducted in Ireland, and particularly the principle upon which criminal prosecutions are not conducted in Ireland, which is equally important. I referred to this matter yesterday on the Vote for the Chief Secretary, but though, no doubt, the whole of the Government are the people ultimately responsible in this matter, the people primarily responsible are unquestionably the Irish Law Officers for the advice which they give in the matter. Now, I venture to lay down as a proposition which cannot be disputed, that it is the practice of England that when life has been taken—about the gravest character of offence—there shall be some method of redress for the subject through the Coroner's Jury, and alter proceedings from the Coroner's jury, then through the legitimate tribunals of the country. Now that that is a practice which is fundamental in our Constitution I think nobody will deny. I do not want to dogmatize or lay down universal propositions in this matter, but it is certainly not within my knowledge or recollection that where a Coroner's Jury in England have found that life has been improperly taken away by any individual, it has been the practice to treat that finding with contempt, and take no action upon it. The usual course, not only with reference to individuals, but especially with regard to the Police Force—a force which is under the immediate control of the Crown—is that when serious charges are made they shall be inquired into. I have been responsible myself for the conduct of the police in England for many years. I have never known a case, I will not say where the verdict has been returned by a Coroner's Jury, but where a charge has been brought against the police on any reasonable ground, when there have not been instructions given for a prosecution—and that even in
    1326
    cases where the Government were convinced of the innocence of the police. And this has been always done in order that the conduct of the police should be cleared. That is the course that is pursued in England upon the matter, and we have demanded that the same course should be pursued in Ireland. We have said that when charges are brought against the police, I will not say by a Coroner's Jury, but any other reasonable charge, that there should be due inquiry made, as we make it in England, by bringing the matter before the magistrates or the Court, or in having the matter inquired into by some other appropriate method. In Ireland we find that the lives of people may be taken away, and that the subjects of the Queen may be slain, and yet the Executive not only refuse to make any inquiry, but interpose every obstacle in the way of any inquiry that would satisfy the public as to the grounds upon which and the manner in which those lives had been taken. Now, Sir, that is, to my mind, a double mischief. In the first place, it is treating human life in Ireland in a way in which you do not treat human life in England. But it has a still greater and more mischievous effect. It is educating the police into the belief that they may do what they please with impunity—that they can take life—that they can do anything they please, being quite certain that the Executive Government will protect them from any inquiry and from all responsibility. That is a state of things unknown to the liberties of England, and without precedent in the practice of this country. To teach the police that whatever they did they would never be called to account is a doctrine preached by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in this House, and that, apparently, is the principle practised by the Law Officers in Ireland; and I desire to-night on this Vote for Criminal Prosecutions to challenge both the doctrines of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the practice of the Law Officers of Ireland. Well, when we laid down these principles, familiar, inveterate, never departed from as I know in the practice of this country, how are we met by the Government? Do the Government think it worth while to deny it; do they think it worth while to argue against it? Not a bit of it;

    1327
    they meet us with a tu quoque, that most conclusive of all arguments. Now, to my mind, the practice is one that cannot be justified, and if a practice is to be condemned as inconsistent with the doctrines and the traditions of English liberty, you do not make it any better by showing that other Governments have done exactly the same thing. You may make that taunt against individuals, but you cannot establish the principle for the nation. If, therefore, the charge of the tu quoque were as true as I am going to show the House it is absolutely false, it would be an argument of no avail at all. What would it show us? It would only show that the traditions of Irish Governments under whatever administration had always been evil. ["Oh, oh!" and Laughter.] Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) laughs, but I am afraid that is a proposition that cannot be denied. I do not believe that there is any Irish administration of historical times that can bear to have applied to it tests of English liberty. That is the unfortunate consequence of generations and centuries of coercion. You have never governed Ireland on the principle on which you have governed England, and you have never applied to Ireland the principles which you apply to the English subjects of the Queen, and, unfortunately, this habit of special legislation and exceptional administration has poisoned the blood of Irish administration in Dublin Castle, and nowhere has the poison been more deadly than in the legal portions of the administration of Dublin Castle. They have ceased to believe and they have ceased to practise the principles which are familiar to Englishmen in reference to the liberty and the rights of the subject. Well, but if this miserable tu quoque had been true it would have been a bad and worthless argument. But I have a more important subject, and I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the fact that these tu quoques of his are manufactured to order. I will meet the right hon. Gentleman and his precedents. Everybody in the Committee will remember the triumph with which he propounded his seven cases the other night—his seven lean kine of tu quoques which he introduced as a conclusive argument to
    1328
    deal with this important subject. Now, what was the object with which he propounded these tu, quoques of his? His great object was to show that no action had been taken, or at all events in these seven circumstances had not been taken, by the Executive Government in cases where Coroners' Juries had found that life had been taken by the police. Now, he triumphantly demonstrated this, and his great confederate and exponent of the Press, The Times newspaper, I see this morning says:—
    "As Mr. Balfour was able to show, Mr. Gladstone's Government had in seven cases, between 1881 and 1885, treated the verdicts of Irish Coroners' Juries against policemen as mere attempts to turn an antiquated form of legal inquiry into a political weapon wielded with a malignant purpose, and had consequently declined to institute proceedings, or even to order a departmental investigation."
    So you see the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in persuading The Times newspaper, and probably even more intelligent parties, that the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), where Coroners' Juries had found verdicts against the police, invariably declined to institute proceedings—or at least in the seven tu quoques which were produced the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Well, now, I ask the House to mark these words—"That the Government instituted no proceedings." I am going to test the crediblity of the official statements of the right hon. Gentleman, which every day are becoming weaker in my estimation, as I find that the most solemn of his official declarations appear on examination to be entirely without foundation. Now, I will take his seven cases. The first three of them are cases in which he says the Grand Juries threw out the bills. How came it that the Grand Juries had bills to throw out? Who presented the bills? The Coroners' Juries found verdicts against the police, and there were bills put to them; but who presented those bills? Why, the Government which instituted the proceedings upon the subject. Of course the Government considered it their duty upon the finding of the Coroner's Jury to present indictments—I presume that to be the case, for I do not know how otherwise the bills could have come before the Grand Jury. The Grand

    1329
    Jury ignored the bills, but that was not the act of the Government. The act of the Government was in presenting the bill—the act of the Government was in accordance with the finding of the jury to bring the person implicated by the Coroners' Jury before a Court of Law in order that the case might be investigated. Therefore the statement—the self-contradictory statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, confuting itself as to three cases out of the seven—showed that the late Government did institute proceedings, and that if they came to an end it was the act of the judicial authority and not of the Government who presented the Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What statement did I make?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Why, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was that the Coroners' Juries found their verdicts, and the Government took no action on them, and never prosecuted.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never made that statement in regard to seven cases.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: With the right hon. Gentleman's statement we are all familiar. What I say is this, where Coroners' Juries have found verdicts since you have been in Office, why have you not presented bills to Grand Juries? Have you presented bills in such cases, and, if not, why not; and why has The Times newspaper, on your statement, charged us that we never instituted proceedings in any case on these findings? Then I say that the mere fact that the Grand Jury ignored the bills showed that the late Government did prosecute, and that they considered it their duty to prosecute in these cases. I say nothing about the character of the Grand Juries in Ireland. I leave it to the vindicators of law and order to degrade the Coroner's Jury, a Constitutional tribunal. I leave them to speak of it with contempt, and treat it with contempt, and to trample it under foot because it does not suit their purposes. I will not deal with the Grand Jury in Ireland in the same spirit as the right hon. Gentleman deals with the Coroner's Jury. From the three cases I have mentioned I will go to other cases. Now, it is a very short time since the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, and it takes a considerable period, even more
    1330
    than 48 hours, to show up completely and absolutely the unfounded statements which the right hon. Gentleman is in the habit of officially making in this House. Now, I will take two of these cases which I have been able to test, and I will state to the Committee what are the facts. Having stated what are the facts, I will compare them with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He did not give the names of the cases, or where they occurred, but I am entitled to identify them. I will state the facts of these cases on official authority, which I will pledge myself are much better than that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Now, the last case he referred to was one which occurred on the 27th of October, and I have no doubt that that must be the same case as the Belmullet case, which, according to my record of the proceedings, took place on the 28th of October. It is certainly the same case, because the right hon. Gentleman spoke of two women who died, and were killed. [Laughter.] This seems to be a subject for mirth for hon. Gentlemen opposite, but that I cannot help. It is in accordance with the spirit in which they receive all observations of this character. The whole object of that statement of the case was to show that though the police had fired, and though two women were killed, the Government took no action—that though the Coroner's Jury had found a verdict against the policemen, the Government thought themselves justified in treating that verdict with contempt, and taking no action at all. That is the statement made deliberately to the House of Commons by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland. I will tell the Committee what are the facts. After the verdict of the Coroner's Jury was given, the two persons impugned by the Coroner's Jury were both subsequently prosecuted by the Crown Solicitor at Belmullet. That is an absolute contradiction, an absolute refutation of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. They were brought up before the Resident Magistrates for the purpose of being returned for trial, the investigation took place before a Resident Magistrate, and the Executive Government took all the measures which were necessary for bringing about a trial founded upon the finding of the Coroner's Jury; and, if

    1331
    the matter did not proceed further, it was because of the action of the magistrate, who found it was not necessary to proceed in it, and not to the action of the Executive Government, who were bound to bring the men to trial. That is my answer to the fourth of the seven eases of the right hon. Gentleman. Now I come to the next case, and that is the only case which occurred under the administration of Lord Spencer. Some of the former cases to which the right hon. Gentleman referred were in the earlier years under Mr. Forster's administration, and when, under the unhappy suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, it might possibly be supposed all law was suspended in Ireland. But I will show you that in all the cases which I have been able to examine in which a Coroner's Jury found a verdict, proceedings for bringing the persons to trial were instituted by the Executive Government. I come to the next case, and I am able, fortunately, very easily to identify it. It is a Ballina case, which took place on the 5th of May, 1882, the day before the Phoenix Park murders, and the day before Lord Spencer arrived in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said with triumph, "Now we come to number six." You will remember his manner, you will remember the sort of air with which he brought these eases forward. This is his statement to the Committee of the House of Commons, and I ask you to compare it with the true facts of the case—
    "On the 5th of May, 1882, a detachment of police was attacked by a mob, and the police fired. A man was shot, and no steps were taken in pursuance of the verdict of the Coroner's Jury."
    Now, that is the deliberate statement made by the Minister responsible for the Government of Ireland—namely, that on the finding of the Coroner's Jury no steps were taken by the Government. What are the facts of the case? It apperred that on the release of Mr. Davitt from prison, demonstrations had taken place. There were processions, and the police had seized the musical instruments of the band in one of these processions, which act led to a tumult. The police fired, and a boy named Mellody was wounded, and from his wounds he ultimately died. What did the Government do? The Coroner's Jury found a verdict, and the Crown Solicitor was
    1332
    directed to report to the Government. That official stated that he did not think that there could be any doubt that at the time of the firing the situation was so serious that the police were justified in firing for their own protection, but that certainly there might be a difference of opinion as to their conduct in seizing the drum. Now, mark how alike that is to Mitchelstown. The opinion was that when a tumult had reached a certain point the police were justified in firing, but the Crown Solicitor considered it was a matter of very serious consideration what provocation had been given by the police in seizing the drum; as in the Ballina case by the seizure of the drum, so in the Mitchelstown case by the forcing of a reporter through the crowd. An inquest was held, but proved to be abortive through some legal defect. A fresh one was then held, and an open verdict returned—namely, Mellody died from a gunshot wound inflicted by the Constabulary under Inspector Ball. Thereupon the Attorney General directed Ball to be summoned before a magistrate. And this is the case brought forward after deliberate inquiries by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland as one in which the Government took no step. What are we to think of the official statements of the right hon. Gentleman? The Attorney General directed Ball to be summoned before a magistrate to show cause why he should not be returned for trial. These are the tu quoque of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, these are the manufactured precedents from the statements brought forward to mislead the House and to mislead the people.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman is making an imputation that is un-Parliamentary.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg pardon. I will say, which would have the effect necessarily of misleading the people. Now, the magistrate, after legal investigation, determined that the information should not be granted, but compensation to the amount of £195 was paid to Mellody's father and to the other persons injured. This is a case which is brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland as demonstrative that the Government took no steps upon the

    1333
    finding of the Coroner's Jury. I have not had time to examine the only two remaining cases, but, out of the seven cases, I have shown the Committee that in five of them the Government took the necessary steps upon the finding of the Coroner's Jury to bring the person impugned to a public trial, and that they instituted proceedings in all the cases. That is what I have to say upon the seven precedents of the right hon. Gentleman. Now, what is the position in which the responsible Government stands in making such statements as that? The right hon. Gentleman, flourishing his arms the other night, jeered me for audacity on the strength of these precedents. I will not characterize the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, because you, Sir, have very properly reminded me that it is difficult to do so in Parliamentary language. I shall, therefore, refrain from doing so. I am quite satisfied to state the facts, and to allow persons to form their own judgment and express their own opinion upon the subject. I do not wish to be understood for one moment as charging the right hon. Gentleman with having deliberately stated circumstances of this kind not believing them to be true, but I say the right hon. Gentleman is in the habit of very recklessly making statements which, upon inquiry, turn out to be unfounded, and that he is in the habit of trusting to informers, and to information much of which does not deserve to be relied upon, and I think a good deal of reform is required in that matter. It is becoming an habitual practice of the Irish Government. A statement as to evicted farms has been made by the Lord Lieutenant, but he has declined to state the source of his information or to prove it. We should like to know very much where the information came from, or what foundation there was for that statement. To justify it or maintain it there was no attempt made; the point was evaded in the usual manner, and it was said—"Oh, you are in favour of derelict farms." That is no answer to the charge that the statement of the Lord Lieutenant was a statement which had no foundation in fact. Who supplied the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary with the documents which he displayed to the Committee the other night; who wrote the papers which he
    1334
    paraded before the House? I have long ago come to the conclusion that there are persons in the secret recesses of Dublin Castle whose business it is to issue false coin. They manufacture specimens of tu quoques to order; they have always got a reserve of precedents to be used when they are wanted by the Chief Secretary; and this metal with a false stamp is manufactured wholesale, and then it is dealt out retail, and, after the fashion of false coiners, they find simple and innocent persons—I mean simple and innocent persons like the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen)—who know nothing about it, to retail this bad coin. That, in my opinion, is the real source of the extraordinary statements which are made day after day, and which, as soon as they are examined, are found to be entirely without basis. Now, I think we ought to have an end of this kind of thing, and that upon great questions of this kind, before they launch these tu quoques, they might at least ascertain that they had some foundation in truth. But, putting aside these precedents and these tu quoques, about which I have said enough—[Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite.] Yes, I should think quite enough for the right hon. Gentleman. I wish him joy of them; and I hope, as he has had enough of them, we shall hear no further reference to them. I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that, if he will not repeat his tu quoques, I will not repeat my criticisms of them; we will, if he likes, pair on that point, and I will let him off in future. But what I challenge is the policy which these tu quoques have been brought forward to justify. That is to say that, when men's lives are taken, when a Coroner's jury has found that the responsibility rests with individuals, the Government should come forward and say—"We will treat that evidence with contempt; we will treat that taking of life with indifference. We will not prosecute; we will not hold any inquiry. We will"—to use the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—"take no steps." That is the policy I challenge. What is the consequence of that policy? It is to inculcate in the minds of the police a most dangerous and most mischievous doctrine—namely, that they

    1335
    may commit whatever acts of violent outrage they please, but that they shall have no responsibility for them; that they shall never be called to account for them; that they shall not hesitate to shoot, but that they are to take care to shoot to kill; and that no man shall ever examine whether they were justified in that conduct or not. That is a doctrine against which I am here to protest. No such doctrine has ever been tolerated in this English land. I do not say the police in England are not instructed to shoot to kill. Happily, they are not armed, and that is a very fortunate distinction between the English and the Irish police. But to preach a doctrine of that kind, to tell the police that their conduct shall never be inquired into, and that they shall never be called to account, is to demoralize the police, is to destroy the protection of the liberty of the subject which has been promoted before. What is the doctrine we have always taught our police? It is—"If you do your duty, you shall be protected and defended." [Cheers.] Yes; I have always acted upon that doctrine—"If your conduct is called in question, it shall be investigated"—I have always acted upon that principle, too—"and if there is no justification for your conduct you shall be punished." Upon that principle I have always acted. These are the principles upon which the police of England have been conducted, greatly, in my opinion, to the advantage both of the police and the people. But it was not the principle upon which the police of Ireland are conducted. It is a totally different principle. It is the principle—"Satisfy the Government. Do not hesitate to shoot—shoot to kill. We will take care of you." The contrast between the conduct of the police in England and the conduct of the police in Ireland is a very painful one. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland regards this matter, no doubt, from an entirely different point of view. I cannot help thinking that there are too many people in this country who regard it from a different point of view. If you attempt to apply this principle or the practice which you employ in Ireland to them, almost every man on the other side of the House will agree with the principle for which, we contend, you are not accustomed—you are not disposed to apply the same principle to
    1336
    Ireland that you apply to England, and that is the real cause of the difficulties which exist between England and Ireland. I am afraid that you do not think that, either in the administration of the police or in the administration of justice, you should treat the "black man" as you do the "white man." These are the Hottentots of the United Kingdom; these are the men who have as little right to the ordinary privileges of British subjects as the 200,000,000 subjects of the Empress of India. It is the same spirit—the same spirit of insolent contempt for inferior races, for subjected people, which dictates this policy, which is the real cause of the distinction between your action in these matters—your action in regard to the police, your action in regard to the Courts of Justice, your action through your Law Officers in Ireland and in England; and it is upon this Vote that I take the opportunity of protesting against these things. I protest against your refusal to deal with these cases in Ireland as you deal with them in England, as you have dealt with them even in Ireland previously. I protest against your refusal to take any notice of the sacrifice of human life, and the verdicts found upon the matter; I protest altogether against your conduct in the administration of justice. I remember a piece of striking testimony which came from one to whom the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will pay more attention than he will to me. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] Yes; I thank the hon. Gentleman for that civil cheer, it indicates the courtesy of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am speaking of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James). We discussed some time ago a legal reform—the examination of prisoners—and my right hon. and learned Friend said—"He would not dare to apply that which he would wish to apply to England to the Courts in Ireland, because he had not the same confidence or reliance in the manner in which those Courts were administered." That is a very serious assertion coming from such an authority as my right hon. and learned Friend; but, unhappily, we find, at every opportunity, you cannot examine any of these proceedings without seeing that the measure of justice, that the measure of liberty is a different

    1337
    one for Ireland and for England. It is against this difference that I am here to protest. I believe it is the fundamental ground of the mischief which exists between the two countries, and I believe you will never have peace between England and Ireland until you are prepared in the administration of justice in Ireland to apply the same principles of Constitutional liberty which govern the administration of justice in England.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) is a man of courage, but I do not think he is a man of discretion. I think that had his discretion equalled his courage, he would not have attempted to revive the debate of Tuesday night, in which, I venture to say, he did not get the best of it, and in which I think there is some doubt whether he will get the best of it to-night. Now, the right hon. Gentleman accuses me of, if not myself manufacturing tu quoques to order, at all events of distributing the goods which are thus manufactured for me. I think I caught in that metaphor a slight reminiscence of a speech I made at Glasgow. In that speech I drew a parallel between the manufacturing agency in Ireland, and the advertizing agency of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). But I have always noticed that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) did not entirely comprehend the full force of the arguments which he describes as tu quoque arguments. I think that, perhaps, in this matter, he is slightly misled by his own self esteem. He apparently thinks that when I quote some action of his Government I quote it as a ground for thinking that the action of the present Government is justified. He appears to think that I quote his action as a precedent which ought to be followed. I never thought of such a thing; it never occurred to me that the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had thought a particular course was right was the slightest presumption that such a course ought to be pursued by his Successors. But I think the tu quoque argument, though it is, I admit, no justification whatever for the course of the present Government, has a most important bearing upon current controversies; for,
    1338
    after all, it enables the country to put a tolerably accurate estimate upon the value of the opinions of the gentlemen who chiefly occupy themselves with criticizing us. The country may be regarded as a Court of Appeal, before whom two opposing clients are arguing. If you can show that every statement now made by one of these gentlemen is in direct contradiction to something which the same gentleman under different circumstances—under similar circumstances. [Ironical cheers.] I thank hon. and right hon. Gentlemen for that cheer; "it indicates the courtesy of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite." If it can be shown that some of the statements which one of the parties made are in direct contradiction to statements made by the same party under similar circumstances on a previous occasion, why that party is absolutely discredited, and it is in order to show the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in their true colours before the country, and for no other object whatever, that I indulge in this tu quoque to which the right hon. Gentleman, not unnaturally, most strenuously objects. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has entirely and gratuitously misinterpreted the motives with which, on Tuesday, I read out the seven cases in which life had been lost in Ireland through the action of the police. The right hon. Gentleman was not present in the debate on Monday. I recollect that to-night, when he was arguing with my right hon. Friend the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), he reproached my right hon. Friend because he had not been present during the debate. It was a lapse of memory; the right hon. Gentleman has not been present during all these debates; he was absent on the most important night of all. Had he been present on Monday night, and listened to the—I will not say to the speech I delivered on that occasion—but to the interruptions made in that speech by his right hon. Colleague the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) he would have known that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) challenged me to produce a case in which life had been lost by the action of the police, and it was not as a tu quoque to the right hon. Gentleman, but in obedience to a request made across the

    1339
    Floor of the House that I produce certain cases. And that is not all. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that, so far as the arguments brought forward on Tuesday were concerned, I introduced these cases to indicate that, judging by precedent, the Crown ought to take no steps whatever when one of the crowd is killed by a policeman. But the right hon. Gentleman forgets his own argument, that instead of having a Departmental Committee in order to investigate the action of the police on the occasion at Michelstown, I ought to have had an inquiry into the causes which led to the death of the men.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said a judicial inquiry.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, not at all. I brought forward the seven cases, not merely in obedience to the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, but also to show that in not one of those cases did his Government hold the judicial inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman has now discovered to be absolutely essential when the life of one of Her Majesty's subjects is sacrificed in conflict with the forces of the Crown.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We had a judicial inquiry in five of them.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I pointed out that in not one of the seven cases did it ever occur to the right hon. Gentleman to hold the kind of inquiry which he now contends ought to have been held into the action of the police. The right hon. Gentleman will observe that I never concealed for a moment that in some of the cases the matter was brought before the Grand Jury; on the contrary, I stated that this was the case, and it was not in reference to the action there has been on the part of the present Government in not allowing the Michelstown case to go before the Grand Jury, that I quoted the seven cases. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken, as he often is, in stating that in three of the cases the subject was brought before the Grand Jury. I believe him to be wrong in this; according to my information, which I believe is accurate, instead of the three cases it was two cases that came before the Grand Jury, and in the first of those two, according to my information, the Grand Jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against a policeman,
    1340
    who was arrested and committed for trial at the Assizes, but the Crown refused to prosecute, and nothing more was heard of the matter.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said there were two cases.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; the right hon. Gentleman said three—he repeated the word "three" over and over again. But I accept the correction which the right hon. Gentleman has now made upon his own statement after I corrected him; he now substitutes two for three. Then I go on. No. 1 and No. 2 have been brought before the Committee; of No. 3 the right hon. Gentleman says nothing; of No. 4 he says nothing; of No. 5 he says nothing, and we now came to Nos. 6 and 7, With regard to No. 7, this was the case of the 27th October, 1881, in which District Inspector Stritch and a party of police who were protecting a procession were attacked, and two women were killed. The right hon. Gentleman stated that I misled the House on this matter. That is not the case. Even the report of The Times, which is in the third person, and does not profess to be a verbatim report, makes it clear that I said that the District Inspector was proceeded against at Petty Sessions, but that the information was refused, and nothing further done by the Crown. That is the essential point. It comes to this, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman is of opinion that everything is done to protect the life of the subject if, when life is sacrificed by the forces of the Crown, one person is brought before one removable magistrate.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: There is no question of Resident Magistrates. It was under Mr. Forster's administration.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman in such utter ignorance of the history of events as to suppose that Resident Magistrates were the invention of Lord Spencer?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: They did not exist at all.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There have been Resident Magistrates for more than 50 years, and during that time they have been as much at the mercy of the Crown as they are at this moment, and they have as much deserved the epithet of "removable" as they do now. Well, sir, I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman is content

    1341
    with saying that the life of the subject is adequately safeguarded if a person is brought before a magistrate whom he is prepared to qualify as a "removable magistrate." Then I come to the last case touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman. The first statement which I made on that case I believe to be perfectly accurate, and I believe the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to it to be wholly misleading. A certain man was killed; the Coroner's jury returned a verdict of death from gunshot wounds, and wilful murder against Inspector Bali; no steps were taken by the Crown in pursuance of the verdict. It is quite true that Inspector Ball was prosecuted, but I believe he was privately prosecuted by the next-of-kin, and not by the Government; and it was not due to the ardent desire of the Government of the day to protect the lives and liberties of the subject that the case ever came before a magistrate at all.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have stated, on authority which I have, that the Attorney General directed that Inspector Ball should go before a magistrate.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have stated my belief that he did nothing of the kind. I have not had time to inquire into statements made 10 months ago; but I absolutely disbelieve that this was the case, notwithstanding the statement of the right hon. Gentleman—made, doubtless, in good faith; and I assert, without fear of contradiction, that, so far as the information which I have is concerned, the prosecution of District Inspector Ball was not done at the instance of the Attorney General at all, but that it was a private prosecution, probably at the instance of the next-of-kin. Now I come to the cause of my surveying these cases. There were seven cases which I brought forward, not to discuss the action of the Crown, but to illustrate the number of cases in which life was sacrificed under the late Government. I say absolutely that my statement has not been shaken in reference to a single case. The right hon. Gentleman has made a practical misstatement with regard to three, and he has misrepresented what I said with regard to No. 7. He has made another mistake with regard to No. 6, and has absolutely said nothing whatever about
    1342
    Nos. 3, 4, and 5. Now we have the exact value of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, and I think the Committee will bear me out in saying that the right hon. Gentleman's conduct on this occasion was dictated rather by courage than prudence. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman attempted to draw a distinction between what happened under Lord Spencer's Government and what happened under the Administration of Mr. Forster. Now, I should like to know on what ground that distinction rests. I was drawing a moral from the action of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Do they repudiate responsibility for what happened under Mr. Forster's Administration? Did virtue reign for the first time in the Liberal Party in 1882? Did they violate all the rights and liberties of Her Majesty's subjects before that date, and did they only begin to practice true Liberalism after Mr. Forster resigned and Lord Spencer became Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I did not repudiate Mr. Forster's action. I said the practice might, perhaps, be expected to have been more lax after the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act than when it was not suspended.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to accept the full responsibility for anything done in 1880. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: "Hear, hear!"] Then what does it matter about the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act? Because the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of one gross violation of the liberty of the subject under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, was that any justification of another gross violation of it in dealing with the verdicts of Coroners' Juries? They were doubly guilty. Then in what particular does the tu quoque fail? It turned out that the whole seven were but too well founded; it turned out that the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member did all these things for which he attacks us, and the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged the responsibility for them. The right hon. Gentleman said I misled the Committee. I completely and categorically deny it; and not only that, but I say that the right hon. Gentleman had not the courage to say so when he was on his legs. The right hon. Gentleman had

    1343
    seven eases to deal with. He dealt with several cases, but the others he did not touch upon at all. I do not mean, of course, to say that the cases which he did touch upon were accurately given.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I assumed, from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman misstated four out of the seven cases, that he misstated the rest; and when I have time for investigation I will prove it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman's courage has diminished very much. I have told the Committee frankly that I admitted that the first and second cases went before the Grand Jury. Will the right hon. Gentleman say I have misstated either of those two cases?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: You stated that we had taken no action whatever.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I stated equally in the first case as in the second that it came before the Grand Jury. In the third case the right hon. Gentleman stated that it came before the Grand Jury, and I stated that it did not; but the right hon. Gentleman was wrong, and I am right. So much for three cases. He did not touch on the fourth case or the fifth. I have proved that he was inaccurate in the sixth case, and in the seventh that he was misleading. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has not a particle of evidence on which to assert that I have misled the Committee. I will now leave this particular matter, and make one general observation. The right hon. Gentleman has asserted that I have attacked Coroners' Juries specially. I have not specially attacked them. I have attacked them, and I have not been alone in doing so. It was Mr. Forster, the Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman—for whose action the right hon. Gentleman had justly expressed his own responsibility—who stated substantially that the verdicts of Coroners' Juries in Ireland, if carried out to their legitimate conclusion, would often be instruments of judicial murder, and I absolutely indorse that statement. The Coroner's Jury in Ireland was too often nothing better than a conspiracy to assassinate, and the Attorney General for Ireland as well as the Government would be parties to that conspiracy to assassinate, if, when they knew that the Coroner's
    1344
    Jury was acting corruptly or incompetently, they were to allow the matter to go on. That had always been felt by responsible Governments of Ireland. It was felt by the Government with which the right hon. Gentleman was connected and when he was a Member of it, and it is not the less felt by the responsible Government of Ireland now; and he should feel that the Government were disgraced if, in obedience to any clamour, from whatever quarter it might come, they were to make themselves parties to a gross injustice, to carry out the doctrines which the right hon. Gentleman has represented to be the doctrines which ought to govern Constitutional action. Let the Committee recollect what the situation of the police often is in the remote districts of Ireland. You have a small town in which there are not more than four or five policemen; and some agitator goes down and rouses the feelings of the populace against the police. [An HON. MEMBER: Quite right]. The result of that has been in some cases, and may be in others, that the small handful of police in a remote district are attacked by overwhelming numbers. Absolutely in self-defence, perhaps with no other means open to them to preserve their lives, it may be that these policemen have either to fire or to charge; some member of the crowd falls a victim; a Coroner's Jury is called—the Coroner possibly being a gentleman of very violent political convictions, and probably the 13 or 14 jurors being under the influence of a powerful organization not favourable to the police, or under the influence of a feeling in the town thoroughly hostile to the police. They bring in a verdict possibly against all the evidence, accusing some unhappy policeman of being a wilful murderer. Are we to make ourselves accomplices in that scandalous transaction? Would any Government worthy of the name acquiesce in such a proceeding? I say no. If the right hon. Gentleman, instead of being a critic of the Government, were responsible, I say he would himself shrink from such a course and spurn it as unworthy of a British Statesman, and the Committee will believe that conduct which the right hon. gentleman thinks unworthy of himself and his Colleagues is not that which we on this Bench are likely to adopt.
    MR. DILLONsaid he had had no intention of intervening in this debate, but although it might be a little out of place he could not think it right to allow a charge so reckless and so horrible as that with which the right hon. Gentleman had concluded his speech to go unanswered. The right hon. Gentleman deliberately charged the Irish agitators—and he presumed he had in his eye hon. Members on those Benches—with going down into remote villages where there were but a few policemen in charge, and inciting angry crowds to attack them. He was glad to be there to meet that charge instantly with the most absolute and unqualified denial. He said it was a false charge, and he now challenged the right hon. Gentleman to produce a single instance in the course of a long and excited agitation, lasting for years, on which he could base a charge of the kind. It was a sample of the conduct Irish Members had been obliged to submit to in that House, and which the right hon. Gentleman had very frequently exhibited in the country when they were not present to meet charges of the most insulting character which were hurled at them without the smallest shred of justification. He wondered that the right hon. Gentleman was not ashamed to level such a charge against them. Was it not true that he (Mr. Dillon) and dozens of those around him had stood on platforms in the presence of thousands of men and a small handful of police, and that in no single instance had a hair of a policeman's head been injured, except where they, as aggressors in large force, had attacked peaceable meetings. Let the right hon. Gentleman stand up and select one out of all the thousands of meetings where the police were outnumbered by 10 to one, or 30 to one, at which the slightest injury had been done to a policeman. He would go further, and say that in no single instance that his knowledge would carry him to, and where any leading or responsible member of his Party was present, and where the police were in a small minority, had the slightest offence been offered to them. Let the Committee take the case of the midnight meeting at Woodford, where, if anywhere, under the circumstances, in Ireland one might naturally have expected that some violence would be shown to the police, because the dis-
    1346
    trict had been police-ridden, and insult and injury had been inflicted upon the inhabitants for years, yet at that meeting, when the police did not attempt to concentrate at night, the 5,000 or 6,000 men collected, and it was found that there were in the town only seven or eight policemen, who were far away from aid, and among a peasantry many of whom had grudges against the police for insults and injuries, no injury was done to them; and the police themselves were obliged to swear that not only had they received no violence or injury, but that they never received an insult throughout the whole time. Was it not shocking that a Minister, responsible for the government of so difficult and troublesome a country as the right hon. Gentleman had made Ireland, should stand up in his place and aggravate his offences by hurling base and detestable charges across the Floor of the House at Irish Representatives, when he must know that there was not a single instance of such a thing as he had described having occurred during the last eight years? In Ireland the story was all the other way. When the police were outnumbered there was peace and quiet and good humour, and there was never the riots and loss of life such as the right hon. Gentleman described: it was only when the police were in sufficient force, and handled by some intolerant and incompetent magistrate, that they broke up musical instruments, or made some brutal or unjustifiable and illegal attack upon the people, and that then, in the riot which naturally ensued, life was sometimes lost. He had thrown out a challenge to the right hon. Gentleman. He maintained that they were entitled to one of two things from the right hon. Gentleman—either to an apology for the charge, or a withdrawal of the charge he had made against them, or else that he should stand up at the Table and mention the date and place when the police had been attacked as he had alleged.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has thrown out a challenge which I do not think is a particularly unfair one. He states that these incidents never occur when the police are small in number, and only occur when the police are in large force, and are handled by some violent and indiscreet

    1347
    magistrate. The very last case in which loss of life occurred in consequence of a collision between the police and the people was, I believe, a case in which there were not more than five policemen in the whole town, and where there was no magistrate in charge of them. It is impossible for me, for obvious reasons, to go into the details of the case at the present moment; but I think if the hon. Gentleman will only consider the circumstances attending the loss of life at Midleton, he will find the general description I have given to the Committee of what may occur now is absolutely borne out by the facts.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is obvious this is a digression from the main Vote.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: It was begun by the Chief Secretary.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division is abusing his position in interrupting the Chair in that way. He must allow the Chairman to direct the discussion, and not interfere when the Chairman is giving a ruling. As I say, this is obviously a digression from the main Vote, to which it has no relation; and now that the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has uttered his protest against the statement of the Chief Secretary, and the Chief Secretary has replied, I think this particular subject ought to drop.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Mr. Courtney, I think that after that intimation from you it will be for the convenience of the Committee that we should return to the Vote immediately before us; and I rise to move a reduction of the Vote by the sum of £500, in order to raise a question as to the administration of the Coercion Act in respect of a large class of cases—namely, the prosecutions for Boycotting in Ireland, which I believe were all directed and authorized by the Attorney General for Ireland. I believe I shall be able to show that a very grave miscarriage of justice has taken place, and that many scores of people have been prosecuted, convicted, and sent to prison for offences which they did not commit, and which are not offences under the Crimes Act. I shall also show that these prosecutions were used for the purpose of sending to prison persons selected for that purpose, or because the
    1348
    police authorities thought it expedient to send them to prison; and I shall show that they were denied every opportunity of raising a question of the legality of their convictions before the Superior Court in the manner in which it was, undoubtedly, intended and promised should be done. It seems generally to be thought that the Killeagh case stood by itself; but I shall show that it was one of a large class of cases of precisely the same nature, and that the same illegality of conviction took place without any redress. Two or three of the cases which I shall deal with were brought before the Committee in July last upon the Vote on Account. The Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Solicitor General for Ireland gave very unsatisfactory replies. Since then I have had the opportunity of being in the district of Ireland where the greater number of these prosecutions for Boycotting took place, and I was able to make personal inquiry into them; and, as a result, I am able to say that nearly all the convictions, if not all of them, have been as illegal and unwarrantable as those in the Killeagh ease. I find in all that there have been 18 batches of persons prosecuted for conspiracy to compel and induce others to refuse to deal with and supply goods to persons. These included 118 persons. There were convictions in 17 of the batches, and 78 persons were convicted; nearly all of whom were sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour. I have made careful inquiry into a large proportion of these cases; I have obtained and read the depositions in many of them; in others I have obtained what information was available in the reports of the trials; and I have consulted persons who were present. I have been unable to discover more than a single case in which, read by the light of the Killeagh case, there was any evidence of a conspiracy to compel or induce other persons to refuse to supply; in all the other cases where I have been able to obtain information there was no such evidence; and it is absolutely certain that the convictions were illegal. It may naturally be asked by the Committee why it was that if these illegalities were committed they were not sooner detected and set aside? The answer is that in every case the Resident Magistrates refused to state a case to the Superior Courts; in

    1349
    many of them the Crown Prosecutors used their influence to prevent the magistrates stating a case. In some of them, where the sentences were for more than a month, there was an appeal to a County Court Judge, and the County Court Judge fell into the same error of law as the Resident Magistrates, and there was no appeal on point of law from them to the Superior Courts. When the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. Healy), on behalf of some of the accused, endeavoured to raise the question of legality before the Superior Courts, he was met by every possible resistance on the part of the Attorney General for Ireland. At the instance of the Attorney General for Ireland the Court of Queen's Bench, which is the proper tribunal for dealing with criminal cases, refused to intervene; and it was only when the hon. and learned Member discovered a method of raising the question by a writ of habeas corpus before the Court of Exchequer, reviving an almost forgotten practice, that the point of law was brought before a Superior Court, and the three Judges then held that in the case before them there was no evidence whatever to warrant a conviction under the Act. The decision in the Killeagh case was given on June 25 last, and since then there have been no further prosecutions for Boycotting of this kind; and this alone raises a strong presumption that all the previous convictions were illegal. Let it not be said that the point raised was a purely technical one, and one which was contrary to the spirit of the Crimes Act. All these prosecutions took place under a sub-section of Clause 2 of the Crimes Act. The next Sub-section was copied from the Act of 1882, and was aimed at Boycotting when accompanied by intimidation. The new sub-section aimed at conspiracies to compel and induce others to refuse supplies. I find in the debates on this sub-section that the Attorney General for England justified this addition to the Clause of the Act of 1882. He said—
    "We have over and over again pointed out, and we maintain that in our view there were important matters with which the Act of 1882 did not deal in respect of Boycotting. It may he that there may not be individual intimidation; but persons may meet together, and, without performing the acts themselves, may provide money or inducements, or adopt other measures
    1350
    commonly practised by Associations, to compel or induce others to take the steps complained of."
    It is quite certain, from this and many other passages I could quote, that the decision of the Exchequer Judges in Ireland was in complete accord with the intentions of the Government, and with their declarations and promises to this House, and that it never was intended to give to Resident Magistrates power to send to prison persons for merely refusing to supply goods. Let me say of exclusive dealing, refusing to supply goods, and other acts included in what we call Boycotting, that where they are accompanied by intimidation, or where an association of persons by threats or inducements compels or induces others to refuse to supply, such acts are highly criminal; but where individuals under the influence of public opinion, whether singly or at the same time, refuse to supply, their acts are certainly not criminal. We may regret and deplore them, as we may regret and deplore the harsh evictions or the harsh action of the police which have led to them; but they are certainly not criminal. It is, and ought to be, the right of any individual to refuse to supply any other, and any attempt to extend the Criminal Law so as to include such persons would work enormous injustice, and could be used, as I shall show it has been used, with injustice as a means of oppression. In none of the cases which I have been able to inquire into, with one possible exception, has there been any evidence of a conspiracy to compel or induce within the meaning of the clause in the Crimes Act. The only evidence, as a rule, produced was the bare refusal on the part of some tradespeople, selected by the police for the purpose, to supply goods. The cause of action may be the same in all of them. When the Crimes Act armed the police or the landlord with what they they believed to be its power, they went round to such of the tradespeople as they wished to send to prison, perhaps, even others, and where they refused to supply they were prosecuted, convicted, and sent to prison. In most cases they called on tradesmen they had never dealt with before, generally asking for goods they did not want, and which they could have got elsewhere. Let me give a few illustrations. There have been two classes of cases under

    1351
    the clause I refer to—one of prosecutions for refusing to supply the police, the other for refusing to supply some landlord who has incurred unpopularity, or some person who has taken an evicted farm, or an Emergency man. Of the first class of cases I could supply numerous illustrations. In all that I have examined there has been no evidence whatever of any conspiracy within the Killeagh decision. At Kildysart, in County Clare, a batch of farmers were prosecuted for refusing to supply turf to the police. The evidence showed that the police had a plentiful supply at their barracks. The farmers had simply refused to supply. There was no evidence of any conspiracy to compel any of them or any others not to supply. Some of them proved that they were not allowed to sell turf by their landlords; one of them showed that he had to buy turf himself. They were all convicted and sentenced to two, three, or four months' imprisonment. A more extraordinary case was that of the 24 publicans at Miltown Malbay, who were prosecuted for refusing to supply drink to the police. A prosecution under the Crimes Act was about to come on. The parish priest had reason to fear that there would be a renewal of disturbances between the police and the people coming into the town from the country, as had occurred on a previous occasion. The Sunday before the trial he addressed the country people in his chapel, and he urged them not to come into the town during the trial. With the same object he also addressed the shopkeepers in the town, and especially the public-house keepers, to shut their shops during the trial. The people followed his advice; all the shops in the town were closed during the trial. The police took the opportunity of getting up a number of prosecutions. Two of of them were sent round the town by the Inspector to ask for refreshments at 34 of the public-houses. They were refused, and 24 of the publicans were prosecuted under the Crimes Act. It was admitted at the trial that the police did not want any refreshments; they had all they wanted in their barracks. The parish priest came into the witness-box and stated that it was by his advice that they had acted as they had done. There was evidence that on previous occasions the police had been served.
    1352
    There was no evidence of any conspiracy to compel or induce. In spite of this, 21 of them were convicted, and were sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. They asked for a case to the Superior Courts. That was refused. After the sentences, Colonel Turner offered to remit them if the men would acknowledge themselves in the wrong by entering into a written agreement not to do it again. Ten of the accused adopted that course; the others refused, and went to prison. It may be interesting to the Committee to hear that the public opinion of the district was so strong against the men who signed the agreement that during the month the others were in prison no one went near their shops, and even their brothers and nearest relatives would not have a word to say to them. I quite admit that in strict law a publican is bound to keep his house open; but if he fails to do so it is only a matter which can be dealt with when his licence is renewed. I have the depositions before me in this case, and there is absolutely no evidence on which a conviction could be supported. In another case, at Fermoy, two policemen went into the shop of a man named Moloney, and asked for a pair of boots hanging in his shop, and when he declined to sell he was prosecuted. It appeared that the police did not want the boots; they merely went there to get up a prosecution. In cross-examination one of them was asked—
    "Who directed you to go to the shop?—Inspector Jones.
    "Why did he tell you to do this?—He told me to get a pair of boots in the house.
    "Were they for himself?—No.
    "Any pair of boots you put your eyes on you were to get?—Yes.
    "And you did not care a pin who they were for?—No.
    "Was it for the purpose of getting up a prosecution that you went into the house?—I did not know at the time what it was for.
    "Do you know it now?—Yes; certainly."
    It is obvious that the man was simply sent there to ensnare the shopkeeper, There was absolutely no evidence of conspiracy. The man was convicted on this evidence, but was allowed to go out on his own recognizances. I could multiply cases of this kind. The other class of eases—those of landlords or others—were much of the same kind. There was the case of the farmers at Mil-town Malbay. There had been a long-standing

    1353
    dispute between a Mrs. Moroney, the owner of the land in the neighbourhood, and her tenants, and the people of the district. The dispute had arisen from the belief of the tenants that their rents were excessive, and that her evictions were harsh; and she had, in consequence, been more or less avoided by the people ever since. The shopkeepers of Miltown Malbay, mainly under the influence of the opinion of the country people, refused to supply her. I will not enter into the merits of the case, which are not very relevant, to what I desire now to describe; but I may mention that Sir West Ridgway and Colonel Turner have urged her to reinstate the evicted tenants in order to bring about peace. She was a very courageous and determined woman, and set up a store where she supplied her servants and her hotel. When she found herself armed with the Coercion Act she determined to turn the tables on the Miltown Malbay tradespeople. She began by sending her horse to three blacksmiths in the town, asking them to shoe it. She had never employed them before; she had no difficulty in getting the work done elsewhere. When they refused she had them prosecuted. They were convicted and sent to prison for a month. They asked for a case to the Superior Courts, but were refused. I have seen the depositions; they disclose no evidence whatever of a conspiracy. I have myself heard the story of those three men. They are most respectable tradesmen. They said that if they supplied Mrs. Moroney they would lose their customers among the country people. They had entered into no conspiracy against Mrs. Moroney. There never had been a resolution of the Land League to Boycott this lady. It is absolutely certain that the convictions were illegal; and, if a case had gone to the Superior Courts, they would have got off. Mrs. Moroney, after this success, sent two of her servants into the town to get up prosecutions. They asked for a pennyworth of lace at one shop or a bottle of porter at another, and, on being refused, four or five of the shopkeepers were prosecuted. On cross-examination the servants admitted that Mrs. Moroney did not want the goods; that her servants had no money to pay for them; and that they had simply been sent there to get up pro-
    1354
    secutions. The magistrates in this case had a glimmer of good sense and refused to convict—Mr. Hodder, one of them, saying that the conspiracy was on the other side. There was another case of much the same kind at Miltown Malbay connected with Mrs. Connell. Mrs. Connell and her son had come under the ban of popular opinion there, on account of the son having taken part of an evicted farm, and his offence was aggravated by the fact that he was a member of the Land League. He was turned out of the League, and he was consequently avoided in the town. The case is alleged to be one of hardship. I think it has been much exaggerated; but it is immaterial to my case whether it be so or not. One day, accompanied by two policemen, Mrs. Connell appeared in the town, and, going to various tradesmen, asked them for supplies of sugar and tea. She and the police picked out the shops they thought fit, passing by others, and, when refused, they prosecuted these shopkeepers. Some of them were convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. They asked for a case to the Superior Courts, which was refused. They then appealed to the County Court, where the sentences were increased to six months. I have the depositions before me of the evidence taken before the magistrates, and I say with the utmost confidence that there was no evidence whatever of any conspiracy within the decision of the Kelleagh case. When this case was under discussion in July last the Solicitor General for Ireland stated that there was further evidence given before the County Court Judge which showed a conspiracy to compel or induce. From inquiries I have made, I am satisfied he is misinformed, and I am confident no further evidence was given which justified conviction. At all events, I will challenge the Chief Secretary to state what this further evidence was. It is my conviction that these men have been sent to prison unjustly. The Kanturk case was very similar in its general features. Mr. Leader, when armed by the Coercion Act, went round to the shops of the people he wished to prosecute and send to prison and asked them for goods. He admitted that he did not want them; that he had never dealt with these men before; and that he could have got his

    1355
    supplies elsewhere. I must frankly admit that in this case there was evidence of these men having been present at a previous meeting of a threatening character, which I think might support the conviction; but the case is interesting as showing how the selection of persons is made. The last case I shall deal with is that at Drangan. Five tradesmen there were charged with conspiracy to compel others not to supply a man named Mitchell with goods. It appeared that Mitchell had been employed as an Emergency man in charge of an evicted farm, and had, undoubtedly, been avoided by the people, and refused supplies by the tradespeople in the town. He had, however, left the district, and his son was in charge of the farm. The police sent for him to come back to Drangan in order to get up prosecutions. They took him round to various tradesmen, selecting those they thought fit, and, when refused, they prosecuted four or five of these shopkeepers. The case was on all fours with the Killeagh case; there was absolutely no evidence whatever of conspiracy to compel and induce others. They were convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment. They appealed to the County Court Judge. Before the appeal came on the Killeagh case was decided. The County Court Judge reversed the sentences against two of them, and sustained them in the other two, without giving any reason for this distinction; and, in fact, there was no difference between the four cases. The convictions were all illegal; but there was no appeal from the County Court Judge. I say that in all these cases the police have acted as what the French call agents provocateurs. They have got up prosecutions; and have called on tradespeople, either alone or with some landlord, selecting the people they desired to prosecute, not wanting the goods, but simply bent on getting up prosecutions and getting convictions. I feel absolutely certain that in all the cases I have mentioned, save one, the convictions were illegal, and would have been quashed by the Superior Courts if they could have been appealed. What I desire is to point out three main points. First, the illegality of all these convictions. Secondly, that the accused were in all of them deprived of the power of obtaining a decision of the Superior Courts on the legal
    1356
    point. Thirdly, and not least, the use made of these prosecutions by the police and some neighbouring landlords to select for prosecution persons against whom they had special spite, or whom they thought expedient for other reasons to send to prison. I have to ask the Committee who was responsible for these proceedings and for the grave miscarriage of justice. I cannot but think that the Attorney General for Ireland was mainly responsible—it was he who directed the prosecutions; he must have had all the facts before him; he ought to have known that there was no evidence to justify the charges against these men for conspiring to compel and induce them; he ought to have known that the prosecutions were against the spirit of the Act and contrary to the intentions of the Government as assured to Parliament in the debates to which I have alluded; he ought to have been aware of the arbitrary and unjust selections that were being made by the police and the local officers for prosecution; and he ought to have been aware that the police were provoking prosecutions and using the Act oppressively and unjustly. The Resident Magistrates are not responsible for their own incompetency; but I think we had a right to expect that the Attorney General for Ireland should guard against a miscarriage of justice of this kind by not allowing all these proceedings. I ask the Committee to express an opinion on his action by proposing a reduction of the vote for his salary of £500.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Law Officers, be reduced by £500, part of the Salary of the Attorney General."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)said, he must say he thought the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), considered as an attack upon the Attorney General for Ireland, was a very remarkable speech, and for this reason. In the attack the right hon. Gentleman had made upon the Attorney General he had brought before the consideration of the Committee a number of cases directed by the Attorney General in which the prosecution had been success-

    1357
    ful. That seemed to him (Mr. Madden) a most remarkable form of attack upon a Law Officer of the Crown. Let them consider what was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He first asked them to assume that, because the Court of Exchequer decided a particular case in a certain way, therefore in all the other cases mentioned to the Committee, had an appeal been possible to the Court of Exchequer, the conviction would have been quashed.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The circumstances of each case being similar.
    MR. MADDEN: The right hon. Gentleman had assumed that the circumstances were similar; but, even if the circumstances were, how does his argument affect the Attorney General? The decision in the Killeagh case was a useful decision to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) no doubt deserved the highest thanks of his political friends for having unearthed it. It was a useful case, because it served as a means of attack, not only on the Resident Magistrates, but upon the County Court Judges, as well as the Attorney General. It was said that if the Resident Magistrates had followed the law as laid down in this case they would not have convicted; and, so far as the County Court Judges were concerned, it was said that they would not have confirmed the decisions of the Resident Magistrates if they had followed the case; and against the Attorney General the case was held up in proof of the erroneous and illegal character of his action in directing a large number of prosecutions. But this must be on the ground that he had deliberately directed prosecutions in cases in which he knew that the evidence was insufficient, with a view to having those prosecutions followed up by illegal decisions. This Killeagh case had done duty on the Vote for the salary of the Chief Secretary; it was now doing duty on the Vote for the salaries of the Irish Law Officers, and, no doubt, it would do duty again at a later stage on the Vote for the Salaries of the Resident Magistrates. The first remark he (Mr. Madden) had to make on this subject was that, after all, the Killeagh case was an isolated one. No matter into what topics the Committee wandered from time to time, this case
    1358
    cropped up again in debate after debate, discussion after discussion, night after night, being used against the Chief Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Resident Magistrates. He thought anyone who had been a student of the Dublin newspapers recently, and had taken note of the cases which had come before the Court of Exchequer, would not be suprised at the right hon. Gentleman opposite making so much of this isolated case, because they would have found in 14 consecutive cases which had come before the Court of Exchequer from Resident Magistrates during the last sittings, the decisions of magistrates had been confirmed in each and every one. Therefore, he was not surprised at the Killeagh case being made such use of, although it had happened so far back as January of the present year, He, however, gave the fullest credit for the discovery of the case to the hon. and learned Member for North Longford. He (Mr. Madden) and other Members of the Committee had had experience of Courts of Appeal dealing with the decisions of Inferior Courts, and he must say it would be difficult to find another instance where 14 consecutive cases were decided by the Court of Appeal in favour of the decisions of a single tribunal. He was afraid, however, that, notwithstanding that circumstance, they would hear over and over again of the Killeagh case. Well, he did not shirk the Killeagh case, although, as he had said, he invited the attention of the Committee to the fact that it was an isolated case. He rather liked the Killeagh case, because he thought it brought out very clearly the distinction which was to be drawn between that case and the other cases which ranged under what he called statutable conspiracy, by which he meant a, particular kind of conspiracy, indictable at common law independently of the Statute, but which fell within the Statute, inasmuch as it enabled magistrates to deal with such cases summarily. The Killeagh case fell short of that, and ranged under another head of conspiracy which could be dealt with at Common Law, and which might be described in the words "refusing to deal with a person with the view of injuring him." He had examined into the circumstances of the Killeagh case, and he asserted that it contained this peculiarity—that

    1359
    there was no proof in it of the existence of a Boycotting conspiracy. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite would take the trouble to examine the depositions in the case, he would find that there was no allusion to Boycotting from one end of them to the other. His view of the law was this—mere proof of refusal to deal on the part of a number of persons, even if it were proved that the refusal to deal was directed against a certain person, with a view of injuring his business or starving him, failed as a case of conspiracy summarily punishable under the Act of last year; but if it could be proved that in a certain neighbourhood there was a conspiracy for the purpose of Boycotting any individual, and if there was evidence that the refusal to deal was an act done in pursuance of a conspiracy of that particular kind, there would be evidence to justify conviction under the Act for an offence, which would not only be conspiracy to refuse to deal for the purpose of injuring, but a conspiracy to Boycott. The right hon. Gentleman would ask—"What do you mean by Boycotting?"
    MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Is it in the Act?
    MR. MADDENsaid, he would rather give the opinion of a very high authority, the weight of which would be acknowledged by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had given a definition of Boycotting, which, he ventured to say, in legal accuracy, would have done credit to any Judge on the Bench. The right hon. Gentleman had said this—
    "What is Boycotting? In the first place, it is combined intimidation. In the second place, it is combined intimidation for the purpose of destroying private liberty of choice by the fear of ruin and starvation."
    He (Mr. Madden) fully adopted that definition of Boycotting, and he maintained that if they could prove in any case that a man was told he was Boycotted, or could otherwise prove the existence of the class of conspiracy described by that word, as defined by the right hon. Gentleman, there was ample proof of the existence of conspiracy for the purpose of combined intimidation made use of to destroy private liberty of choice through the fear of ruin and starvation. There was no proof of such a conspiracy in the Killeagh case, and
    1360
    that was really the foundation of this decision—that there was no evidence to that effect. These cases were used as an attack upon the Attorney General. The argument must be that he was foolish enough, or wrong-headed enough, or malicious enough, to direct improper prosecutions against certain men, foreseeing or intending that the Resident Magistrates would be malignant enough or foolish enough to give effect to the Attorney General's directions in the absence of evidence. But, even if that were so, what about the County Court Judges before whom appeals had been heard? Did the Attorney General direct the prosecutions, foreseeing that the County Court Judges would be foolish and malignant and wrong-headed enough to give effect to them? The argument used in this connection was rather a roundabout one. The Attorney General ordered prosecutions in all important cases in Ireland, and he would assume that in the particular cases the right hon. Gentleman opposite had mentioned, the Attorney General had discharged that function and had directed the prosecutions to take place; but, seeing that those prosecutions had been successful, how the director of those prosecutions could be quarrelled with he failed to see, unless on the grounds which he had suggested. Before they could make the Attorney General responsible, they must consider the cases in which the County Court Judges had erroneously—it must be assumed—affirmed the decisions in the proceedings which the Attorney General had erroneously directed. There was an appeal allowed in certain eases to the County Court Judge, and appeals had been made in several of the cases mentioned. No doubt it would be said that the decision of the County Court Judge was wrong; but he found, on looking into the facts in the Kildysart case, that when the appeal came before the County Court Judge the appellants had all pleaded guilty. He had the greatest respect for his learned Colleague the Attorney General for Ireland; but to say that his learned friend could have the prescience to know beforehand that the prosecutions, which he is supposed to have improperly directed, would succeed because these unfortunate creatures would come in and plead guilty was carrying argument, even in political

    1361
    matters, to an extraordinary point. A number of cases had been referred to, and, perhaps, he might group them together for the convenience of the Committee. For instance, there was the celebrated boot case, and the case of the publicans of Miltown Malbay. The gravamen of the charges in those eases was that the cases were got up by the police. If the cases were got up by the police, he should be the very first to denounce the action of the police; but let the Committee consider for one moment the circumstances of the case. There was either a conspiracy to Boycott, or there was not. If there was no conspiracy, his argument on this point did not apply; but that was not the particular point on which he was addressing the Committee. Assuming there was conspiracy to Boycott, it was said that the police selected the persons who were to be convicted of conspiracy. Now, suppose the police went to a man who was not a member of a conspiracy. How could they get up a case against him? If a policeman went to a publican for supplies, and the publican supplied him, how on earth could the police get up a case against the man? It really seemed to him that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were confounding two distinct matters—namely, getting up a case of conspiracy, and procuring evidence of acts done in pursuance of an existing conspiracy. It was utterly impossible to call into existence a conspiracy which did not exist. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the Kildysart case and the remarkable case of Hannah Connell. Those cases went up to the County Court Judge. He reminded the Committee that the County Court Judge had the evidence which was given before the magistrates, and additional evidence given orally before the Judge, and not in the form of depositions. He was certainly of opinion that if they had all the details of the case before them the Committee would feel that they had satisfactory proof of a Boycotting conspiracy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had fairly challenged him to state what additional evidence was given of a Boycotting conspiracy in the case of Hannah Connell before the County Court Judge. He had a distinct recollection of the facts of the
    1362
    Hannah Connell case, and there was evidence, in his opinion, to sustain the allegation which he submitted was the fundamental allegation in Boycotting conspiracies—namely, that there was a conspiracy to combine to intimidate. When the case came before the County Court Judge additional evidence was given, and, in particular, the evidence of the son of the Boycotted woman, who gave important evidence as to the nature of the conspiracy. Hon. Members, who were acquainted with the practice in the Irish Courts, would know that the depositions were taken in writing. The evidence before the Resident Magistrate was in the form of depositions, which were available and could be examined; but when the case went before a County Court Judge upon appeal, not only were the depositions usually put in evidence, but it was the constant practice to take additional evidence orally in open court. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman asked him to refer to the depositions in the Hannah Connell case, and to point to anything there to show the existence of a Boycotting conspiracy, he was bound to reply that they could not look at the depositions only, because, in addition to the depositions, there was evidence, not in the form of depositions, but in the form of oral evidence. He had informed himself as to the additional evidence given in this case, and he asserted that it conclusively proved the charge. It was proved, for instance, that Hannah Connell was told by several shopkeepers to go out of their shops because she was Boycotted. The conspiracy to Boycott was carried to such an extraordinary length that this poor woman would have actually starved had it not been for the action of a charitable neighbour. He confessed that, if he were lecturing law students upon this branch of the law, and wanted to illustrate the difference between a conspiracy which could not be proceeded with under the Act, and one which could, he should select, as illustrations, the Killeagh case on the one side and the Hannah Connell case on the other. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had been courteous enough to intimate to the Government his intention of moving this reduction. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to what was known as the Killarney case; but in the notes which he supplied the

    1363
    Government with that case was mentioned. That was a very remarkable ease. It came before the Court of Exchequer, and the decision of the magistrates was reversed as regards Sullivan, one of the persons charged. There were five persons tried; but, although they were tried at the same sitting and before the same Court, they were technically tried separately—that was to say, the depositions were separately entered in each case. How was it that the decision of the Resident Magistrates was reversed? In the first case which came before the Resident Magistrates full evidence was given that Mrs. Curtin was Boycotted, but in the other cases, including Sullivan's, the evidence entered in the first case was treated as applicable to the other cases in which it had not been formally entered up. When the case came before the Court of Exchequer this defect was pointed out, and the conviction was quashed; but that was due to the informality of not repeating in each case the evidence as to Mrs. Curtin being Boycotted. Any person, however, reading the judgments of the Court of Exchequer, must come to the conclusion that if the evidence given of Boycotting had been formally entered against Sullivan, the decision would have been different. In the Drangan case the right hon. Gentleman asked them to draw a most extraordinary conclusion. In that case there was an appeal to the County Court Judge. It was well the Committee should bear in mind the nature of the attack made in this case—in the first place upon the County Court Judge, and through him upon the Attorney General, who had the hardihood to recommend the prosecution. In that case the County Court Judge confirmed the decision as regards two men, and quashed it in regard to two others. An hon. Member opposite said the Judge split the difference. But had it come to that, that such an argument was seriously addressed to the Committee? Indeed, the fact that the County Court Judge confirmed the decision in two cases and quashed it in the other two cases raised the presumption that he acted with great consideration and discrimination in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman would have the House of Commons infer—in a case where the Resident Magistrates had convicted, and
    1364
    where the County Court Judge, while reversing two of the convictions, had confirmed two others, the Attorney General was culpable in directing the prosecution. He had now gone through all the cases raised by the hon. Gentleman, and he felt bound, in conclusion, to remind the Committee that all these cases had been threshed out over and over again, and that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in order to attack the Resident Magistrates and his learned Colleague the Attorney General, were obliged to go back upon what was somewhat ancient history.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had stated that these cases had been threshed out over and over again. That statement was quite unfounded. One case, he admitted, had been threshed out, and that to the great disadvantage and detriment of the Government—namely, the Killeagh case. The hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to the Killeagh case as a marvellous discovery. He (Mr. Clancy) did not know whether it was or not, but it certainly was a very fortunate case for the Opposition, and a very unfortunate case for the Government. The Killeagh case was certainly marvellous in this respect—that the Government did their very utmost to prevent the Court of Exchequer from having anything to say on the case, and that it was only in consequence of the ingenuity of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) that an opportunity was obtained of bringing the case before the Court of Exchequer, and of exposing the action of the Attorney General and of the magistrates as a gross outrage even upon the Coercion Act. The Solicitor General for Ireland had made a most extraordinary excuse for the Resident Magistrates, and, consequently, for the Attorney General for Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had examined 14 cases in which the magistrates' decisions had been confirmed, and he left the Committee under the impression that those 14 cases were all cases of conspiracy. [Mr. MADDEN: Oh, no!] He appealed to the Committee whether what he had said was not the fact.
    MR. MADDENsaid, that he was then dealing with the use made of the Killeagh case to support an attack upon the

    1365
    decisions of Resident Magistrates; and he remarked, that if they went back over the last 14 cases they would find that the decisions of the Resident Magistrates had been confirmed in every case.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, they were talking about conspiracy prosecutions, and conspiracy prosecutions only; and when the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that the magistrates' decisions had been upheld in 14 cases, without mentioning that these were not conspiracy cases, he left every man in the Committee under the impression that he was referring to conspiracy cases only. The Committee would be surprised to learn that not a single one of those cases was a conspiracy case. On the contrary, they were entirely different from conspiracy cases, and it was a remarkable fact that since the Killeagh case neither the Attorney General had dared to direct a prosecution for conspiracy to Boycott, nor had the magistrates ventured to make a conviction. The Killeagh case had been referred to as an isolated case; but he remembered very well that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) first called attention to this case last April, the Chief Secretary for Ireland was as cock-sure about it as the learned Solicitor General for Ireland was about other cases. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian asked the Chief Secretary whether, in the particular case of Thomas Barry and the others, there was evidence of the express conspiracy with which they were charged; and he was told by the Chief Secretary that there was evidence of that express conspiracy. On that occasion he (Mr. Clancy) asked whether, as a matter of fact, in that or any other case of conspiracy prosecution, there was evidence of anything except a refusal on the part of certain persons to supply goods; and in regard to all the cases, the answer of the Chief Secretary was that there was the additional evidence of conspiracy to compel and induce. In spite of the Government, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman, and in spite of the Attorney General for Ireland, the Killeagh case was brought before the Exchequer Division, and the Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Justice Andrews, and Mr. Baron Dowse flatly contradicted the statement of the Chief Secretary. The Solicitor General
    1366
    for Ireland to-night had made a great point of the fact that some of these persons pleaded guilty. It was very natural that they should. The reason was perfectly plain. Scores and scores of eases had been decided in defiance of the law, and the people very naturally considered it was no use for them to fight their cases. They felt that they would be convicted anyhow, and they thought that if they pleaded guilty, they might be let off. His wonder was that they had not even more people accused of conspiracy to Boycott pleading guilty for the express purpose of getting off. The Solicitor General for Ireland had expressed surprise that it had been stated that the police selected persons for prosecution, and he had asked how the selection was made. He (Mr. Clancy) begged to refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Leader case in the County of Cork. The landlord in that case was at war with his tenants, and he determined to punish the leaders, or the persons whom he believed to be the leaders of the agitation. It was proved in that case that, after consultation with the police, he visited some of the houses of the accused, some of which he had never visited before. It was proved that he selected some of the houses for visitation for the express purpose of getting up a prosecution, and not for the purpose of getting the goods for which he asked. It was proved, in the third place, that he did not want the goods he asked for, and that he did not tender any money when he asked for them. It was proved in the fourth place that he could have got the goods elsewhere in the very same town, and at the very same time. There was no doubt about all these facts; and now he came to the part the police had taken in this prosecution. District Inspector Jones, the chief prosecutor in the case, was asked if he had chosen respectable persons for the purpose of prosecuting them, and he had answered in the affirmative. When asked if he had been sent to these places by Captain Plunkett, he had refused to answer, on the ground that any communication made to him by Captain Plunkett was a privileged communication. Then, in the "boot case," hon. Members would remember that, in cross-examination, Constable Corrigan bad declared that District Inspector Jones had not given him instructions to

    1367
    obtain any specific pair of boots, but to get any boots in the shop, and bad given him a sovereign to tender for the purpose. He acknowledged that the boots were not for himself. He was asked, amongst other things:—
    "Is it the duty of a policeman to create crime?—It is not.
    "Did you attempt to create it here?—No, I did not.
    "Did you go with that object?—I did not know what the object was.
    "Do you know it now?—I do.
    "What was that object?—A prosecution."
    It was clear that this case had been deliberately concocted by the police, and they had here a proof that the real conspirators in this case were the police and the landlords, who strove to injure the shopkeepers. The shopkeepers were the very persons who naturally would be the intimidated, and not the intimidators, as they were people between the upper and the nether millstones. If a tradesman refused to sell goods to Boycotted persons, on the one hand they were prosecuted by the Government, and, on the other hand, if they sold goods to Boycotted persons, they were Boycotted themselves, so that they were the very last people in the community who should be accused of intimidating. They were the intimidated. Instead of intimidating others they themselves were intimidated, sometimes by the action of the Government and sometimes by the action of the surrounding people. As to the case in which the name of the man Mitchell had been used, the Boycotted person had actually left the district and had no share in the prosecution until one of his neighbours had written him asking him to come down to Tipperary in order to institute a prosecution. As he had said before, the police seemed to him to have been the conspirators in all these cases. Who conspired in this case he should like to know? Evidently the police who wrote to Mitchell, for there would have been no prosecution but for that letter to Mitchell. They had heard a great deal to-night about the Sullivan case; but he (Mr. Clancy) was afraid they had not heard all they ought to have heard about it. The Solicitor General for Ireland had said that if certain formal evidence had been given in that case that was given in other cases the Court of Exchequer would not have convicted. If that evidence had been in the depositions it would not have made a bit of difference.
    1368
    The case was the most flagrant instance of illegality that could be brought before the Committee. What was the crime in that case? Why, that of intimidating certain smiths against shoeing Mrs. Curtin's horses; but the allegation was preposterous, as there were no smiths there to intimidate. As to the Miltown Malbay case, three smiths had on different days separately and individually refused, on one pretence or another, to shoe a certain person's horses; and on that evidence, and that evidence alone, these smiths were actually convicted by the Magistrates of conspiracy to "compel and induce" other smiths who did not exist in Miltown Malbay at all. As to the case of Hannah Connell, he challenged the Solicitor General to produce either the original depositions upon which the Magistrates convicted, or the additional evidence of conspiracy to compel and induce, which it was alleged had been produced before the County Court Judge. The hon. and learned Gentleman had a dozen times declared that he was going to produce this additional evidence, but he had never done so. He (Mr. Clancy) remembered that the very last time the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken he had favoured them with a great deal more of it. On that occasion part of this additional evidence was that Hannah Connell's son went to a certain person and asked him to go fishing with him, which this person refused to do. The idea that everybody in Mil-town Malbay was to fish with Hannah Connell's son on pain of being prosecuted for conspiracy to compel and induce other persons not to fish with him! Why, the thing was eminently ridiculous. He had listened very carefully to the hon. and learned Gentleman to-night, and had not been able to discover a single scrap of additional evidence. The hon. and learned Gentleman had talked of two convictions—first, that before the Magistrates and then that before the County Court Judge. Well, he (Mr. Clancy) was ready to produce to night a copy of the depositions on which the Magistrates had convicted, and he maintained that there was not in those depositions one single scrap of evidence to do more than prove refusal on the part of these persons to deal. Would the Chief Secretary undertake to say that there was anything more than that in these depositions; and, if

    1369
    not, could he defend, at any rate, the conviction before the Magistrates? As to the case before the County Court Judge, he challenged the Chief Secretary or the Solicitor General to produce a shred of additional evidence. Could anyone think of such additional evidence? The only thing he could remember was that some person had said to Hannah Connell that she was Boycotted. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in his argument, had simply smothered up the facts with a cloud of words; but would anyone venture in his waking moments to contend that to say to a person, "You are Boycotted," was evidence against the person using the words of taking part in a conspiracy to compel and induce others not to deal with the person spoken to? The thing was in the highest degree absurd. It had been said that this woman was starving; but, even if that were so, what had it to do with the case? If it were to be understood that in matters of this kind they were to proceed on moral considerations, he could understand that suggestion having some weight attached to it; but he had thought that the present Government was a law and order Government which held itself bound by the strict letter of the law. It now appeared, however, that in the absence of express evidence of conspiracy to compel and induce they were bringing in as proof of a particular conspiracy the fact that somebody was starving through some other conspiracy. If that was the argument of the Government, it seemed to him like the doctrine attributed to the Jesuites—namely, that one might do evil in order that good might come of it. Was that the argument of the Chief Secretary—was it that in order to keep this woman from starving they were to violate even the Coercion Act? He regarded that attempt to excite the sympathy of the British public for Hannah Connell as an impudent fraud, and whoever invented the story of Hannah Connell's starvation he did not hesitate to say was a liar. Starving, indeed, she having Mrs. Moloney's shop on the other side of the road, at which she had been dealing for years. This woman starving who it appeared had enough money to buy whisky with, so that she came on the witness-table drunk when she was examined. That woman starving whose
    1370
    son swore she had a pit of potatoes, which pit of potatoes had been seen by the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Jordan). Why, if she had been starving, the relieving officer would have attended to her, and the medical officer would have relieved her. On her examination this woman declared that when she went to look for the goods for refusing to sell which people were prosecuted, she passed by certain shops and went to others in Milltown Malbay. This whole story, concocted by God knows who, and taken up by the Chief Secretary some months ago, was a most impudent fraud, got up for the purpose of deluding the British public. All convictions for conspiracy under the Crimes Act were, as a matter of fact, illegal convictions, there not being a scrap of evidence to support the charge of conspiracy. There were two sorts of conspiracy which came under review in these cases—the conspiracy to Boycott, and the conspiracy to compel and induce other people to Boycott. There might be evidence in some of these cases—though he did not say that there was—of some sort of conspiracy to Boycott; but in a country like Ireland, where there was a class like the landlords, who were generally detested, it required no conspiracy on the part of the general public to refuse these people the courtesies of life. It needed no concert to establish in people's minds a desire to refuse these persons the courtesies of life; nevertheless he was willing to admit that in some of those cases there might be evidence of a conspiracy to Boycott, There was, however, not a single case which was not on all-fours with the Killeagh case, and which was not as destitute as was the Killeagh case of any scrap of evidence of conspiracy to compel and induce. In other words about 100 people had been imprisoned in Ireland against the law, against even the Coercion Act, under this single head of conspiracy alone. He challenged the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland to produce a single scrap of evidence to sustain this charge of conspiracy, and denied that any evidence had been adduced that night. Here were the depositions; if they were not all there it was the fault of the Government, they had been asked for by Irish Members and they had been refused; the House had been denied the means of forming a

    1371
    judgment on the matter. But he had no hesitation in relying on the evidence he had himself collected, and in all these depositions there was not a scrap of evidence to sustain the charge of conspiracy to compel or induce to Boycott. There might be evidence of other conspiracy, but there was no evidence of this particular hind of conspiracy which was to be treated under two Resident Magistrates. He hoped the discussion would not be allowed to drop so soon as was anticipated by the hon. and learned Solicitor General. There was the most flagrant illegality about all these cases, and it was important that the matter should be thoroughly investigated to completely disclose this vile conspiracy on the part of the landlodrds, police, and Government against the shopkeepers of Ireland, who, in many cases he was glad to say, were the mainstay of the National cause. In the very nature of the case shopkeepers were the very last to be suspected of intimidation, for this was the class between the upper and nether millstone, between popular disfavour on the one hand and prosecution by the Government on the other.
    MR. KIMBERsaid, he only intervened for a few moments to defend the character of two defenceless women, who could not speak for themselves, from aspersions that were unworthy the character of Englishmen or Irishmen. He alluded to the widow Connell and Mrs. Moroney. During the Recess he travelled through Ireland to find out the truth of much that had been said as to the condition of things, and he found himself, though he did not know it at the time, travelling in the footsteps of the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken from the Front Bench opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). The hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Clancy) said the case of the widow Connell was an impudent fraud, and that those who said this woman was Boycotted nearly to starvation were liars. Well, he did not hestitate to incur the risk of such a reputation in saying a few words on behalf of the widow Connell. She was described by one of the hon. Members opposite as a strong, vigorous woman of 50, who, on the floor of an Irish Court, appeared as a drunkard. He himself found the widow Connell living with her son, a man of 54 years of age, a
    1372
    woman with one foot in the grave and, apparently, of about the age of 80; a woman who bore no signs of intemperate habits, and who had about her in her cottage all the evidences of having been a thriving, careful, industrious woman; and the tale he heard from her, and which he found corresponded with the information he had collected in the neighbourhood, was that not only had she been Boycotted to the edge of starvation, but an attempt had even been made to deprive her of that first necessity of life, water; that her son had been prevented, forcibly and physically prevented, from obtaining a supply of water for her daily wants from the source where he was in the habit of obtaining it. He found that but for the charity of that much-maligned lady, Mrs. Moroney, this woman would have starved. It was well for hon. Members to say that she picked out and applied to certain shops in Miltown Malbay to plant upon them a charge of refusing to supply her, and that she must have passed scores of shops where she could have been supplied, but the Committee would be surprised to hear that Mil-town Malbay scarcely possessed a score of shops altogether [Cries of "Hundreds." "Twenty six publicans."] He had no interest in misrepresenting what he found. He did not know if hon. Members would wish that an aged woman of 80 should go to a public-house to be supplied with the necessaries of life? He did not know whether there might be 26 hidden places where liquor could be supplied; he knew there was not outward evidence of them. At least he had no knowledge of Widow Connell, and spoke only from what he found from personal observation and inquiry, and felt bound in the interests of truth, justice, and common humanity towards a poor woman to say what he did. He had a word to add on Mrs. Moroney. The right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of her in terms which were a disgrace to manhood. He found that the right hon. Gentleman had called on the lady, and from her he must have heard, and did hear, the other side which he kept back from the Committee, and which in common fairness he might have given.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had avoided expressing any opinion on Mrs. Moroney herself.
    MR. KIMBERsaid, he understood from Mrs. Moroney that the visit of the right. hon. Gentleman had preceded his by about a week, and he must have heard from her, as he (Mr. Kimber) and another hon. Member who accompanied him heard, enough to show that the statement the right hon. Gentleman had made as regarded her dealings with the three blacksmiths, and her power to get served from other sources, was quite incorrect and unfounded. So far as he had been able to ascertain from inquiry, these three blacksmiths would have been very glad indeed to have been again summoned and prosecuted; it would have been the best justification they could have had for them to deliver themselves from the thraldom of the National League. The right. hon. Gentleman said, without a word of proof, that this lady could have have her horses shod at other places, but he found as a fact that Mrs. Moroney had to send her servant at dead of night to the distant town of Ennis to get her cart-wheels tyred that the daily work of the farm might go on. A most unfair attack had been made on this woman. He understood she was to be brought before the Royal Commission as a witness, and this most unmanly attack made upon her by the right hon. Gentleman—though he would not attribute to the right hon. Gentleman so unworthy a purpose as to say it was intended—would have the effect, if nothing were said on the other side, of prejudicing the woman's evidence. This was his justification for intervening in the discussion.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYasked, how the hon. Member knew Mrs. Moroney was coming forward as a witness for The Times?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not express any opinion on the conduct of Mrs. Moroney; he expressly refrained, as he had said, from doing so. Of course he had not been to the place without forming an opinion, and if necessary he would express it, but it was not necessary for the purposes of his argument to do so.
    MR. KIMBERsaid, he certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that Mrs. Moroney had justly incurred the indignation of the neighbourhood by the course she had adopted towards her tenants.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not know whether to admire more deeply the powers of observation or the method of reasoning of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. To deal first with his powers of observation. He said he collected his facts in the place, but he did not tell the Committee who were the persons with whom he communicated, he did not say whether he confined his inquiries and his interviews to one side, or whether he extended them impartially. It might be presumed that, like a great many other visitors of the same type of politics as the hon. Gentleman, he confined his communications to the landlords and the police.
    MR. KIMBERsaid, he did not call on a single landlord.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Member was a member of the Legal Profession and appreciated subtile distinctions. He was correct in saying he called on no landlord, but he admitted that he called on a landlady of the district, a large distinction perhaps to the legal mind, but not to a common-sense lay Assembly like the House of Commons. But as an example of the hon. Member's powers of observation, he said there was not a score of shops in the whole town, and yet the right hon. Gentleman opposite was able to prosecute no less than 26 publicans in the town. And then, to give a specimen of the hon. Member's powers of argument and logical inference. The question Irish Members had been endeavouring to bring before the Committee was this—that in this case it was the persons who had been intimidated who were convicted as intimidators, and among these persons in this district were the three blacksmiths alluded to. His hon. Friend said that these blacksmiths refused to shoe the horses of Mrs. Moroney, not because they wanted to intimidate her, but because they were afraid of the popular disapproval that would follow if they did this work. Therefore, these blacksmiths, he and his hon. Friends argued, ought not to be convicted as intimidators, because if there was any intimidation at all in the case, these persons were the victims. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Gentleman cheered that; his reason was still obfuscated. The hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland

    1375
    entirely rebutted that statement of fact and justified the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and then the hon. and learned Gentleman, by way of backing up the argument of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, said that these persons described as intimidators by the Executive Government were really intimidated; in fact, he said they would have been glad to have been convicted twice, because they would then have been free from the thraldom of the National League. But these tyrants were sent to gaol for intimidation! This was the kind of reasoning by which Coercion Acts were passed and justified in Parliament. It was not at all surprising from these specimens of observation and reasoning that the hon. Gentleman should have misapprehended the whole point of the discussion during the evening. They had not been discussing the dealings of Mrs. Moroney with her tenants, though they were quite willing to discuss them if necessary, nor had they been discussing the age of Mrs. Connell. What they had been discussing was whether the statement was or was not correct that Mrs. Connell went to these shops, because if she were not supplied from those shops she would be starved. What answer had the hon. Gentleman given? He said the woman was Boycotted. Well, she may or may not have been; that was not the point. Irish Members said, and it had not been denied, that Mrs. Connell could have got every necessary of life from Mrs. Moroney, who had been keeping a shop to supply goods to persons in the position of Mrs. Connell. To say, therefore, that the woman was in danger of starving was an impudent fabrication on the part of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland to bolster up his case. Whether Mrs. Moroney was a good or a bad landlady might be properly discussed, but Irish Members had not raised that discussion; it had been raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, though for the reputation of his powers of observation and inference he had better have avoided the subject.
    MR. KIMBERsaid, he did not speak of Mrs. Moroney as a landlady at all.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, as what did the hon. Member speak of her?
    MR. KIMBERsaid, he spoke of her in relation to the three blacksmiths.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was afraid the hon. Gentleman's intervention did not remove their desire to be governed by the intelligence of their own people instead of by the ignorance and want of understanding of those who claimed to be members of a superior race. Mrs. Moroney as a landlady was not discussed, but she was discussed as a victim of the National League, with others, by the hon. Gentleman, but whom the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland said were intimidators. But he was not going further with that. There had been no reply to the convincing speech of the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy); perhaps because the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland happened to be absent during that speech, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given those indications of physical fatigue he could appreciate, for he was in much the same condition. In mercy to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, the Committee, and himself, he moved that the Chairman do report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not think it necessary to press this Motion. He would feel that the discussion had strayed very wide indeed of the personal merits or demerits of the present holder of the Office of Attorney General for Ireland. Of course he was well aware that a large latitude of discussion might well be allowed on the Vote by hon. Gentlemen who wished to canvass the acts of the Government in Ireland; but he would suggest to them that a later stage of the Vote, or the Vote for Resident Magistrates, would afford opportunity. The Amendment now before the Committee, not the Vote itself, might very well be disposed of now. Subjects which hon. Gentlemen desired to raise could be raised with more appropriateness at a later stage, and a Division might well be taken on this particular reduction.
    MR. DILLONsaid, he had no desire unduly to prolong discussion, but it was

    1377
    utterly impossible to pass away from that point of criminal prosecutions in Ireland without raising serious questions, such as the manipulation of Irish juries—a matter entirely foreign to anything the Committee had been dealing with, and touching the liberty of the subject in the gravest possible way; and this was a matter for which the Attorney General for Ireland was solely responsible. There was no desire to prevent this Division being taken, but it must be understood that Members were not precluded from opening a subject of the utmost gravity and importance, the manipulation of juries and the transfers of venue under the Crimes Act.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he did not think that the hon. Gentleman's claim was at all unreasonable. The matter was entirely alien to that the Committee had been discussing, but it was germane to the Vote. He repeated the suggestion that a Division on the reduction of the Vote should be taken, and then the matters the hon. Gentleman referred to should stand over for another occasion.
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, he was disposed to accept the suggestion, if it was understood that by allowing a Division now to be taken they were not precluded from discussing other matters appertaining to the functions of the Attorney General for Ireland, that they would not be called to Order when resuming the debate.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, this request was only reasonable.
    MR. DILLONsaid, there should be a distinct understanding that Members were not precluded from raising other questions touching on the responsibility of the Attorney General for Ireland, if they consented to a Division now.
    THE CHAIRMAN: A Division taken upon this proposed reduction will not preclude bringing up again the action of the Attorney General for Ireland in respect to other matters.
    MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONsaid, there were matters exactly on all fours with that which had been made subject of debate in reference to various counties, and it would, he thought, be better, having these matters in view, to report Progress.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I intimated at the beginning that the discussion which has
    1378
    taken place would be more appropriately taken on the Vote that follows.
    MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONsaid, the matter he desired to discuss had relation to the action of magistrates in County Kerry but it was not a matter properly pertinent to the Vote for Resident Magistrates.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he did not know if he was quite in Order, but he earnestly pressed upon the Committee to recollect that Christmas Day was approaching, and that the Committee had to consider, not merely the intrinsic interest of this Vote but the amount of time at their disposal, with a view to apportioning that time fairly among the various topics that claimed attention.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought, after the statement from the Chair, they might proceed to take a Division on this particular reduction, because perfect liberty of action would be left in regard to other matters. As to the right hon. Gentleman's remark that Christmas Day was at hand, he had occasion to recollect that more than others.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, before a vote was taken, he would like to say, in reference to the observations of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, that he had brought forward six cases, going at some length into two of them, of prosecutions under the Boycotting Clause of the Crimes Act. The hon. and learned Solicitor General had dealt with two of those cases only. One case he did not dwell upon, saying that fresh evidence might be forthcoming, but as to four cases the hon. and learned Gentleman had left his argument absolutely untouched, and the discussion, as it was left, was entirely favourable to the contention he raised.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 157: Majority 81.—(Div. List, No. 329.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    MR. SEXTONasked, when the Vote would be taken again?
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, at the next Sitting in the evening.
    MR. SEXTON: At any hour?
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the understanding was that for the present there should be no suspension of the Midnight Rule on Fridays.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: suggested that Irish Members were entitled to a night off. [Laughter.] It was rather an odd way of putting it perhaps, but the Government might be content with taking every night recently for Irish Business, and might surely devote the possible fragment of Friday's Sitting, after the Employers' Liability Bill, to other Business. It was a good principle to make a concession to opponents when it was possible, and Irish Members were entitled to some concession, and the Chairman stood in need of relief from his duties for one night.
    MR. CONYBEAREasked the Government to fulfil the pledge they had given, that after four days of Irish Estimates, Friday should be devoted to the Employers' Liability Bill. Indeed, he was given to understand that no arrangement had been arrived at in regard to that Bill, and that it would be fought through until 12 o'clock, there being no possibility of taking Irish Estimates.
    DR. TANNERreferred to several items on the Orders of the Day which required some discussion, and might well be disposed of on Friday night.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Questions of this nature should be raised, not in Committee on a Motion to report Progress, but with the Speaker in the Chair on the Question when Committee should be resumed.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, there was a disadvantage then that Members could only speak once—an equal disadvantage to Members of the Government. A brief statement now might facilitate matters.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he doubted if he was in Order, but he might be allowed to say that he did not understand that any pledge was given that Irish Estimates should not be taken, if time allowed, on Friday. The Employers' Liability Bill would be taken first, and would probably occupy a considerable part of the evening, during which Members might take that repose
    1380
    he could quite understand they needed, for he felt the want of it himself. It would be inconvenient to put aside the Irish Estimates, having entered upon them.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow.
    Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS BILL [Lords].— [BILL 348.]
  (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS BILL [Lords].— [BILL 348.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—Clause 5, page 3, line 5, to leave out "reconsideration," and insert "revocation."
    On Motion of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, Clause 26 omitted.
    On Motion of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, the following Amendment made:—In Clause 29, page 9, lines 25 and 26, leave out "first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight," and insert "first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine."
    Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  PREFERENTIAL PAYMENT OF WAGES
  (No. 2) BILL.—[BILL 381.]
  (Mr. Randell, Mr. Kenyan, Mr. Abraham (Rhondda), Mr. Llewellyn.)

  PREFERENTIAL PAYMENT OF WAGES

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Priority of debts).
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—
    In page 2, line 15, to insert—
    (4) "In the event of a landlord or other person distraining, or having distrained, on any goods or effects of the bankrupt or of the Company, or having received any payment or undertaking in consideration of not so distraining, the debts to which priority is given by this section shall be a first charge on the goods or effects so distrained on, or, as the case may be, on the money so paid, or on the money payable under any such undertaking.
    "Provided, that in respect of any money paid under any such charge the landlord or other

    1381
    person shall have the same rights of priority as the person to whom such payment is made."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Amendment of law as to landlords power to distress).
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Clause 2 omitted.
    Clauses 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Short title).
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In line 39, leave out "of wages," and insert "of bankrupty."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    New Clause—
    After Clause 1, insert the following Clause:—
    (Amendment of Law as to conditions for presenting bankruptcy petition.)
    "Notwithstanding anything in 'The Bankruptcy Act, 1883,' a creditor may present a bankruptcy petition against a debtor, although the debt owing by the debtor to the petitioning creditor, or the aggregate amount of debts owing to the several petitioning creditors, does not amount to fifty pounds,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, this clause seemed to be a good deal wider than the scope of the Bill; it seemed to deal with the general Law of Bankruptcy.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, the object of the Bill was to enable the wages of a servant to be paid. In many cases this was not possible, in the case of a servant to whom a small amount was owing, as the operation of the Bill might be defeated by a collusive arrangement made behind the hack of a servant, and, therefore, this provision was proposed that, assuming the wages were due, there should be means of getting them paid by direct action of the creditor. It was to prevent collusive action. If a man could not pay wages up to £50, he ought to be made a bankrupt.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he objected; was not this a complete alteration of the Law of Bankruptcy for all creditors?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, his hon. Friend was right; it did alter the Law for all creditors, but it did not seem fair to make the alteration for one set of creditors and not for others. He thought it a desirable Amendment, to which he did not anticipate opposition.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, it seemed to him there should be some kind of sure ground established before making the alteration. It was a very large alteration indeed, and should be considered more fully than it had been or could be on that occasion, and, therefore, he must object to it.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, rather than sacrifice the rest of a useful Bill, he would not press the point. However advantageous it would be to have the clause, without it the rest of the Bill was worth having. He did not want to detain the Committee now discussing the matter, and would withdraw the clause.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would not yield. He believed the general sense of the Committee was with him. Did the Board of Trade favour the clause?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, he was certainly in favour of the clause, and should like to proceed with it if his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport could be persuaded to withdraw his opposition.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he must certainly maintain his opposition, because even if this large alteration in the Bankruptcy Law was desirable, on which point he was not then prepared to express any opinion, it ought not to be made, without notice, in a Bill which dealt with another matter; and, further, he would appeal to the Chairman and ask if it was in Order and competent for the Committee, without an Instruction, to make such an alteration in the Bankruptcy Act in dealing with another and definite subject.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, certainly there was a serious objection on that account, and to move the clause now was not in Order. If he might make a suggestion, it could be dealt with by the House on Report and by special Instruction.
    MR. MUNDELLAasked if, by giving Notice of the clause, it could be introduced on Report.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, it must be coupled with an Instruction. The Bill would have to be re-committed.
    Schedule.
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In column 3, leave out "section forty-two."
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  SAND-GROUSE PROTECTION BILL.
  (Mr. Sydney Buxton, Sir George Trevelyan, Lord Charles Beresford, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Sir Henry James, Mr. Richard Power, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Mr. Broadhurst.)
  SAND-GROUSE PROTECTION BILL.

    [BILL 391.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Penalty for killing sand-grouse).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, there was an objection to this clause, though to the Bill he made no objection. But the clause created the offence immediately on the passing of the Act, and this was unreasonable, for there would be no notice given to anybody. Most certainly there ought to be a notice of, say, three or four months before making it a criminal offence to kill one of these birds. As the hon. Member would see, there were no means of persons knowing the contents of the Act.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, the reason for the immediate application was the intensity of the evil the Bill was intended to remedy. It was growing day by day, and the only chance of making the Bill of practical value was to put it in force at the earliest possible moment. Should he make it the 1st of January? If made much later the Bill would not be of much use.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsuggested the 1st of February.
    Amendment proposed, in line 11, to leave out the words "passing of this Act," and insert the words "first of February, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine."—(The Attorney General.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, of course there must be a further Amendment. Does the hon. Member propose the same date as for other grouse, making it illegal at all time?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, that was his object.
    Amendment proposed, after the words just inserted, to add the words, "and before the first of January, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two."—(The Attorney General.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    New Clause (Short Title) read a second time and added to Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MOTION.
  TRADE AND MANUFACTURES—NAILERS AND SMALL CHAINMAKERS.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. BROOKE ROBINSON, in rising to move the following Resolution:—
    "That the state of things revealed in the Report of the Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade in reference to the present condition of the Nailers and Small Chain Makers in South Staffordshire and East Worcestershire, requires the attention of Parliament at the earliest possible period,"
    said, that under ordinary circumstances, after the assurances given by Her Majesty's Government that this matter was under serious consideration, with a view to bring forward, if possible, ameliorating legislation next Session, he should not have thought it necessary to trouble the House with any observations on this subject, but he now rose more than for any other purpose to afford the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) that opportuity for expressing his views which that hon. Member considered he was deprived of on Friday last. He could not therefore help expressing his surprise that the hon. Member was not now in his place. The hon. Member went down in hot haste by the midnight train to his (Mr. Brooke Robinson's) constituency to denounce him, and to denounce the proceedings in the House, because he was unable to bring the matter forward at his own time, and in his own particular way, but now that the occasion was

    1385
    offered him he did not take the trouble to come down to the House. If this was the zeal, this the interest the hon. Member displayed in the subject, it did not appear to be very complete. He regretted the more that the hon. Gentleman was not present, because he observed in an evening paper a letter from the hon. Member, from which it appeared that he was under considerable misapprehension as to his facts. He seemed to imagine that the two trades, the nail making and chain making, were not connected the one with the other, whereas the state of things existing in the nail trade had brought about the present condition of things in the chain trade. The nail trade was the larger industry, employing some 15,000 persons, while the chain trade was, comparatively speaking, small, giving work to some 2,000 or 3,000. The nail trade had been destroyed mainly by the introduction of machinery, though to some extent it had been affected by the introduction of nails from abroad, and the result of the destruction of the nail trade now was that every nailer losing work in his own trade had, where he could do so, endeavoured to get into the chain trade, so it resulted that there were more chain makers than there was work for. When there was an excess of supply over demand, then it was quite certain there would be a diminution in price. This state of things, too, had been largely brought about by the course of trading among the Birmingham merchants, who were the principal chain purchasers; they put up every order to trade competition. Another statement there was in a letter from the hon. Member for North-West Lanark, published on Monday, to the effect that women worked with men at the nail and chain trades naked to the waist. Now, it had been his lot to have been, for more years than he cared to recall, among these people, and he could say that he never saw, he could say that no one ever saw, work carried on by women in this condition. The women were wives and daughters of the men engaged in the trade; they had their faults in common with the rest of humanity, but he could say most emphatically they were as modest and as virtuous as any class of women in the Kingdom. As he had risen after the assurance given by the Government, not for the purpose of claiming the attention
    1386
    of the House at any length, and since the hon. Member for North-West Lanark was not present, he had nothing more to say in support of his Motion. He would be sorry, however, to sit down without expressing his opinion that the Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade in preparing his Report had, considering that he had no previous knowledge of the subject, performed his duty in an admirable manner, displaying much knowledge and discretion. He formally moved the Resolution of which he had given Notice, but as to withdrawing or proceeding with it, he was entirely in the hands of the House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he thought as his hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) was not in his place, and as he also had the audacity to visit—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Does the hon. Member rise to second the Motion.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he seconded the Motion. As he had the audacity to visit the hon. Member's constituency on Saturday night, he might perhaps be allowed to say a word in defence of his hon. Friend in his absence. He was not surprised at what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Brooke Robinson) it was quite in keeping with his previous conduct, and just what might have been expected after the manner in which he behaved the other day, and the manner in which he prevented the Motion his hon. Friend gave Notice of coming on. He (Mr. Conybeare) was glad, at any rate, that the action of his hon. Friend had had some effect; it had galvanized into grim activity the hon. Member for Dudley. It was the first time the voice of that hon. Member had been hoard in the House on any subject connected with these poor nail and chain makers in his constituency, although he prided himself on being their Representative. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the people did not pride themselves on their Representative; and it was much to be doubted if they would trouble the hon. Gentleman again to occupy that position. He did not suppose the hon. Member was aware of the reason why his hon. Friend the Member for North

    1387
    West Lanark was not present. If the hon. Member had been aware that his hon. Friend's absence was caused by the serious illness of Mrs. Cunninghame Graham, he presumed the hon. Member would not have had the brutality to attack his absent Friend. ["Order, order!"]
    MR. BROOKE ROBINSONsaid, he was perfectly unaware of the state of Mrs. Graham's health, or the cause of the hon. Gentleman's absence.
    MR. SPEAKER: The word "brutality," used as the hon. Member used it, should not be employed in debate, and I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he was preparing to do so. ["Withdraw!"] He had withdrawn; he obeyed the direction of the Speaker, not the Member who represented a portion of Manchester. He withdrew the expression, and explained that what he meant to imply was that, under the circumstances, if the hon. Member had been aware of them his conduct would have deserved the epithet. But he was glad to have the assurance that the hon. Member was unaware of them, and therefore the expression did not apply. He wished, at any rate, to explain that no other reason kept his hon. Friend from his post of duty. He did not think it was becoming in the hon. Member, after a Question had been put to him earlier in the evening, and considering the few occasions when he made his appearance in the House, to taunt his hon. Friend for not being in his place at an hour when nobody could possibly have supposed that this Motion to which he attached so much importance was likely to come on. The fact was the whole of this proceeding was with the view of plucking a brand from the burning, to save a seat at the next General Election. He understood thoroughly well what these tactics meant, and the people of the country understood also. The people of Cradley Heath understood, and they would understand more before many weeks were over. The hon. Member had chosen to accuse those who had taken some trouble to examine into the condition of these people of ignorance of the conditions under which they laboured? He had the assurance to state that the facts testified to by those who went to the place were not really
    1388
    facts; but he would suggest to the hon. Member that if he knew no more about the people in his constituency than his speech would indicate, then it was not worth while his getting up to champion their cause. He had told the House that young men and women, lads and girls, did not work together half nude in the hovels or the villages where this work was carried on; but he (Mr. Conybeare) could only say that he preferred to rely on the distinct statement of men of their own class, who had been constantly living and working among the people, and had more information of the state of things than the hon. Member had taken the trouble to acquire. He preferred to rely on the Government Report of Mr. Burnett, who testified to those things, rather than on the statement of the hon. Member.
    MR. BROOKE ROBINSONsaid, Mr. Burnett's Report did not say anything about persons working in a state of nudity.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, No; but Mr. Burnett explained why he did not. He said the reason why he saw nothing of the kind was that it was a cool time of the year. Here was the Report. The hon. Member went on to defend the moral character of those whom he chose to call his constituents from charges which had never been brought against them. Nobody had charged the people with immorality; nobody would have suggested such a thing until it was suggested by the defence the hon. Gentleman made. The hon. Member thought he alone knew anything of these matters; but probably he knew nothing of the statement in the pamphlet published under the name of Mr. Richard Juggins. [Laughter.] Yes, the name was not so aristocratic as that borne by many hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, but it was the name of an honest man, as honest as any man in that House—perhaps more so than some. This gentleman was the General Secretary of the Midland Counties Trades Federation, and his statement was—
    "Here you have youths and young girls working half-naked, side by side, at the forges, their lives paralyzed and debased by their low rate of wages that causes them to herd in styes unfit for pigs."
    Then, see what he said of the married women—

    1389
    "I have known women to work at the forges within 14 days of their confinement, and hammering away again 14 days afterwards."
    How would hon. Members like their wives to go through such experience. ["Order, order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to control himself within the ordinary limits of Parliamentary decorum.
    MR. CONYBEARE, continuing the quotation, said, it ran—
    "I have known women working at forges at 9 in the morning, and at home, in bed, and confined by 5 in the afternoon."
    The hon. Gentleman opposite posed in that House as the Representative of these poor people, but yet he had never referred to their case before. He never professed any sympathy with them previously to this, but now he got up in that House with a view to dragging this scandalous state of things before the attention of the country, and, at the same time, he chose to sneer at the hon. Members who had already moved in the matter. The hon. Member had taken up this attitude solely for electioneering purposes. But he need not think he had heard the last of this matter; a great deal more would have to be said about it; and he could only repeat that it was a disgrace to the civilization of this country to allow such a state of things to continue so long. According to Mr. Burnett's Report it had been going on over 40 years. The hon. Member now came down and complacently says, "I have lived all my life among these people;" and, at the same time, he censured the hon. Member who had taken so much trouble to lay the matter before the House. He (Mr. Conybeare) was charged with having had the audacity to go into the constituency. Well, he could only reply that the hon. Member for Dudley's constituents would never rest satisfied until they had eliminated him from that House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the state of things revealed in the Report of the Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade in reference to the present condition of the Nailers and Small Chain Makers in South Staffordshire and East Worcestershire requires the attention of Parliament at the earliest possibleperiod."—(Mr. Brooke Robinson.)
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) : I think I never heard a more remarkable speech in seconding a Motion than the one just delivered by the hon. Member for Camborne. A more unfair attack has never been made on an hon. Member of this House. The hon. Member has charged my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Brooke Robinson) with neglecting the interests of his constituents in this matter. Well, I should like to say I am quite sure that the hon. Member who has made that charge, and those who heard it, did not know the facts as to what the hon. Member for Dudley had done. Very early in the present Session my hon. Friend came to me and said he believed that the condition of these people—I may, I think, call them unfortunate people, for the circumstances of their industry are in many respects terrible—was very sad indeed, and he begged I would inquire into it, and that I would instruct the Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade to report upon it. Why, my hon. Friend actually initiated the inquiry which has resulted in Mr. Burnett's Report, and without which the hon. Member for Camborne would have known nothing of the subject. Yet, Sir, he now has the audacity to get up in this House and tell the House that he knows all about the subject, and that he was the first to call the attention of the House to it.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I never said anything of the kind.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I am speaking within the recollection of the House. He charged the hon. Member behind me with neglecting the interests of his constituents, and with only bringing this matter forward in order to catch votes. I think the House will judge of the fairness of the statements and charges made by the hon. Member. All I have to say upon this subject is this—I am sure that at half-past 2 in the morning even so important a matter as this unquestionably is cannot possibly engage the attention of the House as it deserves. The Government are fully aware of the importance of the subject, and of the necessity of dealing with it if there is any way in which Parliament can deal with it without inflicting on these people greater miseries by the destruction of their industry than those they now suffer from. It will have our earnest attention; and I trust that my

    1391
    hon. Friend the Home Secretary or myself will be able next Session to make some proposals to the House with regard to it. I hope that my hon. Friend will not deem it necessary to press the Motion, seeing that it is of so vague a character that I do not think it can be usefully placed on record in the Journals of the House.
    DR. TANNERsaid, he was sincerely glad that the expostulations addressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Camborne had really produced some effect, and that, at any rate, he had secured for it consideration from so important a Minister as the President of the Board of Trade.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Motion?
    MR. BROOKE ROBINSON: I do, Sir.
    MR. CREMER: I object.
    MR. SPEAKER: The matter then stands over till to-morrow.
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): Is it possible for an hon. Member to object after a Motion has been made and debated?
    MR. SPEAKER: The objection, if taken at any time, is fatal.
    Further Proceedings adjourned till Tomorrow.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—County Court Appeals (Ireland) * (297).
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Land Purchase (Ireland) (293), and passed.
Third Reading—Municipal Funds (Ireland) * (290–298); Sea Fisheries Regulation* (291–299), and passed.

LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 293) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
  THE EARL OF HOWTHremarked that it would be of interest to the large body of landlords and tenants in Ireland if they could have the assurance that even a larger sum than £5,000,000 would be guaranteed for the purpose of land purchase. No doubt the tenants of Ulster had had the largest share of the first £5,000,000. That part of Ireland was
  1222
  largely blessed with peace and quietness. It was true the Act had not been so successful in the South of Ireland, but that was owing to the ignorance of the tenantry and the influence of the National League. In his opinion the future success of this scheme depended very largely upon how the money was allocated. The landlords felt deeply thankful to the Government for introducing this Bill in the present critical circumstances; and, on behalf of those landlords, he congratulated Lord Ashbourne on the success of the Act of 1885. Land purchase was a medium to promote Imperial interests, by appeasing the discontented, by satisfying the earth-hunger in Ireland, and by showing those in favour of Home Rule that the Imperial Parliament was able to legislate satisfactorily for them. The measure would no doubt tend to bring about a Home Rule much stronger than the political Home Rule which had been proposed to the tenants. There were, however, influences and circumstances in Ireland which might cause considerable delay in the administration of the Act, and there were no doubt parts of the country where it would not be to the public interest to administer it. The interests of the British taxpayers would not be safeguarded if the principle "first come first served" were to be rigidly observed. He hoped that, if in the early days of the operation of the measure, the Government found that it was working in such a way as not to justify any future grants being made, they would amend it by giving the Executive the right to consider the allocation of the money. He regretted that such a provision was not embodied in the present Bill.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that two noble Lords who had filled the Office of Lord Lieutenant dealt with the question of arrears on Tuesday night last, and rather implied that the Irish tenants were suffering the greatest hardships from intolerably high rents. They had also heard a great deal about the Irish tenantry having improved the land and buildings which they held. No doubt a large portion of the buildings were put up by the tenants in Ireland, but they seldom heard of the substantial contributions which, on very many estates besides his own, had been given by the landlords in aid of the erection of

  1223
  those buildings without any interest or increase of rent in consequence. There was one point which the Irish Members were very well aware of, but which a great many Englishmen who were now in alliance with the majority of the Representatives from Ireland were not aware of, or took care to ignore—namely, that the ignorance, the improvidence, and the folly of a large proportion of the Irish farmers had deteriorated and reduced the natural fertility of the land to a very great extent. The practice of paring and burning, which destroyed the permanent fertility of the land, and which was prohibited by an Act of Parliament—by Grattan's Parliament—was still systematically carried on in many parts of Ireland. During the decade from 1851 to 1860, when there were over 2,000,000 acres in Ireland under oats, the average yield per acre was 13 cwt. and three-tenths; while in the decade between 1871 and 1880, when about 1,500,000 acres were under oats, the average yield was 13 cwt. and one-tenth. Taking the years 1851, 1852, and 1853, the average yield in those three years was 14 cwt.; so that the tendency had been apparently towards deterioration. Taking the next great staple of Irish produce—potatoes; in the first of the two decades to which he had referred the average yield was 4¼ tons per acre, and in the second decade it had fallen to three tons per acre. In the three years 1851, 1852, and 1853, the average yield was over five tons per acre; these figures went to show how systematic had been the deterioration of the fertility of the land under the mismanagement of the tenants. The Irish tenantry did not, therefore, deserve so much credit for unremunerated skill as they generally received. It was all very well to talk of the added value of the farm-buildings and improvements of the tenants, but those buildings and improvements did not appear to have told in favour of the average produce of the land. The significant facts to which he had alluded were carefully overlooked by those who made inflammatory speeches against the Irish landlords.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 (Increase of limit of Advances by Irish Land Commission, and provision therefor) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Limitation of advances).
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIsaid, he rose to move as an Amendment the insertion, after the word "advance" in line 13, of the words "in respect of any application made after the passing of this Act." He did not wish to oppose the clause or to criticize it adversely. He cordially sympathized with what was the evident object of the Government—namely, a further extension of the Land Purchase Act of 1885 to increase more largely than hitherto the number of occupying owners of land in Ireland. Experience clearly showed that the cause of law and order in Ireland had been advanced by the creation of a large number of small owners. He trusted, however, that the Government would understand that that reduction of the maximum advance would not be accepted in any way as a precedent for future legislation on the purchase question. This clause limited the advance to the sum of £3,000 to any one tenant, but the Commissioners had a discretion in certain cases, but he would like to see the maximum £5,000. He hoped that the Government would give a distinct assurance that purchasers above £3,000 should not be excluded from the operation of the Bill. It would be grossly unfair to the valuable class of yeomen in Ireland that they should be expected to hold their land on less favourable terms than less capable and less deserving men. He might point out that considerable expense had been incurred with regard to applications already awaiting the sanction of the Purchase Commissioners, and that it would be a great hardship if this expense should be thrown away. It was in order to obviate that that he moved this Amendment, which he would respectfully press the Government to accept. His Amendment would enable all applications previous to the passing of the Act to come under the new rules, and he did not think it fair even to the Commissioners to adopt the course contemplated by the clause as it stood at present.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 13, after ("advance") insert ("in respect of any application made after the passing of this Act.")—(The Viscount de Vesci.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, he believed the Amendment was out of Order.

  1225
  This was a money clause, and the Amendment, if accepted, would increase the possible charge on the public funds; it was not competent for their Lordships' House to deal with it. He did not, however, anticipate that any of the inconveniences to which his noble Friend had referred would arise from the operation of the clause as it stood.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIasked, in this case, that the Government should not press the Bill through that evening, but, on Report, insert a clause stating that the action of the Bill should be prospective in all its details.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he trusted the noble and learned Lord would accede to that suggestion. The question affected not only the amount of the expenditure, but the application of the fund. It was clear to him that the House of Commons did not intend to do the injustice of making the Bill retrospective, and to affect applications that were already before the Commission. Take the case of a landlord who had made an agreement with his tenant before this Bill was thought of. The agreement had been signed, and application had been made for the purchase money. Considerable expense would have been entailed, but the preliminary sanction of the Purchase Commissioners had not yet been obtained. That was the point sought to be covered by the Amendment. If it was clear that the House of Commons did intend to make this clause retrospective and to do that injustice, there might be very great difficulty in dealing with this clause as a money clause.
  LORD LECONFIELDsaid, he was exactly in the position described by the noble and learned Lord. The papers in a land transaction between himself and a tenant were nearly completed, and the only thing remaining to be done was to receive the approval of the Commissioners. Would he be unable to complete that sale, and would all the expense incurred be thrown away?
  THE EARI OF BELMOREsaid, he did not attach much importance to the provision, as there would be comparatively few applications beyond the limit of £3,000, but he hoped the Government would consent to consider it, and, if possible, agree to it. He did not think the case just alluded to by his
  1226
  noble Friend would come within the scope of this provision, because it had already been dealt with by the Commissioners. He had had himself some experience of land purchase in Ireland, and he thought it was very desirable that every part of the funds should be made to go as far as possible in advances to purchasers, and that as little as possible should be let out in loans.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, this matter had been already maturely considered by the authorities accustomed to deal with such matters, and it was agreed, as it had also struck himself, that it would be outside the competence of the House to deal with it. They all expected that the whole £5,000,00 would be needed, but it was not probabilities, but possibilities, that they must discuss, and supposing the whole £5,000,000 were not needed, the effect of the Amendment might be to place the increased burden of the difference between £3,000 and £5,000 upon the public funds. He had the greatest sympathy, however, with the observations which noble Lords had made in favour of the Amendment; but this subject had been keenly debated at great length in the House of Commons. Opinions differed very widely upon it. A great many felt much sympathy with many of the observations which had just been made, but he knew that there was a great and powerful section of opinion in favour of the way this clause was drafted. He thought it would be inexpedient for their Lordships to entertain this Amendment, even if it were competent for them to do so, but the opinion he held, as he had already stated, was that it was not competent for their Lordships to entertain it.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIurged the importance of giving encouragement to the substantial yeomen, the most loyal class in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid, the point was an important one, and he hoped the Government would listen to the suggestion of his noble Friend.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that he, with his noble and learned Friend, sympathized with the noble Lord (Viscount de Vesci), but he believed that to insert an Amendment of this description would be outside the competence of their Lordships' House. They could not secure

  1227
  indirectly by circuitous words that which was in substance an un-Constitutional principle.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he did not think that a provision in the Bill declaring this Bill not to be retrospective would offend against the Constitutional principle.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, that would be only another mode of stating the same thing. If they increased the subject matter with regard to which any part of the £5,000,000 might be appropriated, they would be enlarging the scope of what that £5,000,000, according to the House of Commons, might be spent on. The objection which had been urged referred to the substance of the Amendment, and he shared the doubts of his noble and learned Friend as to whether it was possible to attain the object in the way suggested without offending against Constitutional principle.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Relation of landlord and tenant determined by approval of advance).
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that the clause was an important one, as it showed that all arrears of rent and other liabilities were, after the agreement to purchase, wiped out. The clause was so framed as to work great injustice, and to confiscate the right of the landlord to rent or its equivalent for a period that might cover one, two, or three years, whilst the tenant was in possession taking the profits and paying nothing. In addition, it was plain that if the clause remained without Amendment, it would operate in many instances as a prohibition against seeking the advantages of the Bill. He would, therefore, move the Proviso of which he had given Notice.
  Moved, at the end of Clause 3, add the following Proviso:—
  "Provided that, notwithstanding anything in this section expressed, the vendor shall he entitled to recover from the vendee interest in lieu of rent for the period which may elapse between the date of signing the agreement for sale and the date of the completion of the sale by the Land Commissioner, unless the parties shall have otherwise agreed. Such interest to be calculated at the rate of four per cent per annum on the purchase money."—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIsaid, he should support the Amendment. In his opinion, the clause was totally unnecessary, and might be struck out of the Bill, as the Purchase Commissioners had already the power to make such an order, and had exercised it on the 1st November.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that the question was fully discussed in the House of Commons. He admitted that the drafting of the clause was not felicitous, although his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack and himself thought the Act sufficiently clear already on the question of interest, and that there was nothing in it which would interfere with the existing practice of the Land Commissioners. But as it was desirable to make the point abundantly clear, he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Subletting to labourers and others) agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Notice to be given when the existing fund will be exhausted).
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIsaid, he moved to omit the words after "same" to the end of the clause. The sum applied for up to November 30 was £6,140,000, or £1,140,000 beyond the amount sanctioned by Parliament, and of that some £700,000 or £800,000 was applied for early in the autumn, when it was still uncertain whether an extending Act would be brought forward. It was desirable that applicants should still be able to lodge agreements with the Land Commission at their own risk.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 6, leave out from ("same") to the end of the clause.—(The Viscount de Vesci.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that he was sorry he was not in a position to accept the Amendment, as the words of the clause were not thought unreasonable in the House of Commons, and they had been accepted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland on behalf of the Government. He therefore trusted the Amendment would not be pressed.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn: Then Standing Order No. XXXV. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Amendment reported.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, he should oppose the Motion, on the ground that it had been hurried through the House, and that it would be a heavy charge to the people of this country. In his opinion the Bill ought to be rejected.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN BOARD SCHOOLS—SAUNDERS ROAD BOARD SCHOOL.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MEATHrose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether the head master of the Saunders Road Board School was recently fined by the Magistrate at the Hammersmith Police Court for correcting a boy, and the right of appeal refused, although the Magistrate declared that he did not think that a deliberate or grievous assault had been committed; whether this was the Magistrate who recently fined the head master of the Beethoven Street Board School for a similar alleged assault, on which occasion, on appeal to Quarter Sessions, the conviction was quashed, and the Assistant Judge delivered the following judgment:—
  "We are all of opinion in this case that the conduct of the boy was such as to call for chastisement, and even for severe chastisement, and we are of opinion that the punishment to him was not excessive, and we quash the conviction. We think it of the highest importance, having regard to the duties devolving upon the head master of such a school as this, that the discipline should not he weakened by unnecessary interferences with his authority, and we do not think that the appellant has in this case done anything which, as a master, he should he sorry for after the fullest investigation of the facts in this case;"
  and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government are not of opinion that the above two decisions of the Hammersmith Police Court magistrate are detrimental to the interests of education and discipline in board schools? The noble Earl said, that head masters and mistresses were placed in a most awkward and difficult position by conflicting decisions of the magistrates. They were placed in positions of authority; they had the control of large numbers of children, many of whom were never submitted to any discipline at all in their own homes, and had no idea of order. The masters were responsible to their employers—the School Board—for main-
  1230
  taining discipline. On the other hand, they possessed very few means of maintaining discipline. There were only two ways—namely, by keeping a child in school, and by corporal punishment. The former of these methods entailed great inconvenience on the master or mistress, as it was necessary to remain in school with a child, and the hours the teachers were obliged to be in the school were already long enough. Moreover, the Clerkonwell Police Magistrate had recently decided that masters and mistresses had no power to detain children after school hours. The result of the decisions alluded to had been that it was almost impossible to maintain discipline in some schools. In one a boy had deliberately refused to read when told to do so, and there had been absolutely no means of compelling him. When the master insisted on obedience the boy said—"You had better not touch me; if you do I shall have you fined again." In another case a boy who had stolen a book denied the theft, but the book was found upon him, and, when threatened with punishment, he made a similar observation to the master. In another case a boy misbehaved in the play-ground, and when the caretaker touched him on the shoulder to point him out, the boy said—"You dare to touch me and you will be summoned." In none of these cases had the masters dared, after the recent decisions, to inflict punishment. The result of the magisterial decision in the case he had mentioned, and others which he had not stated, was to render it absolutely impossible to maintain discipline in the board schools, and unless something was done in the matter by Her Majesty's Government, either the teachers would have to resign, or the children would have to be permitted to do what they liked. If things were allowed to remain as they were, the Education Act would have been a curse instead of a blessing to the country. It was very awkward for a master to be told on the one hand by his superiors that he could punish a boy, and on the other hand to be told by the magistrates that he must not do so. If the decisions of the magistrates were all alike there would be nothing to be done but appeal to Parliament if the matter was thought of sufficient importance, but under present circumstances the masters did not know what they

  1231
  might do and what they might not do. He therefore hoped Her Majesty's Government would see if some regulations could not be laid down stating what corporal punishment might be used in board schools. He thought the cane a very bad instrument, but recommended the salutary effect of the birch rod, which he was sure had been applied with good results to their lordships themselves, not excepting the bench of bishops, in the days of their youth.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): I have communicated with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the subject, and have received from him the following information, which I will give to the House. It is true that Mr. Herbert Williamson, the head master of the Saunders Road Board School, was recently convicted by the magistrate at the Hammersmith Police Court of an assault upon a boy named Walter Kelly, and that such assault consisted of what the magistrate must be taken to have considered the excessive exercise of the right of disciplinary correction. Mr. Williamson was sentenced to pay a fine of 40 s. only, so that no appeal lay. Having regard to the fact that the magistrate, in giving to the Secretary of State his observations on the case, implied that in his opinion there was no deliberate cruelty on the part of the master and no serious injury inflicted on the boy, the Secretary of State directed the remission of the fine. It has been alleged that in a similar case the Quarter Sessions reversed on appeal the conviction by the same magistrate of the head master of the Beethoven Street Board School; but the Secretary of State has no information as to the accuracy of the report of the observations attributed to the Assistant Judge. But, in any case, it must be borne in mind that an appeal to Quarter Sessions is a rehearing, at which fresh evidence can be, and often is, tendered. Though, upon a review of the whole circumstances of the case, the Secretary of State thought it right to remit the fine imposed upon Mr. Williamson, he did not take that course without some anxious consideration, and in announcing his decision to the very experienced Magistrate, whoso decision was under review, he thought it right to observe that cases of corporal punishment were very difficult to deal with, and might
  1232
  very well present themselves to different minds in a different point of view; and he thinks it well to say further now that, having regard to the great difficulty in determining the line at which legitimate correction ends, and excess, and therefore assault, begins, it would be well that school authorities should instruct their teachers to observe, in the infliction of corporal punishment, such a regularity both of time and method as to insure the greatest possible security against excess or temper in the person inflicting such punishment.

PUBLIC BILLS—AMENDMENT TO MOTIONS FOR SECOND READING, "THIS DAY SIX MONTHS."
LORD DENMANasked the Lord Chancellor if the Local Government (England and Wales) Electors Act, 1888 Repeal Bill [H. L.] maybe on the Paper for Second Reading on Thursday, the 13th of December?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that the noble Lord had greatly enlarged the Question on the Paper, but he had no difficulty in answering it. The mere negation of the Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," did not prevent a Bill being put down a second time on the Paper. In earlier times it was not an uncommon thing to move that a Bill be rejected; but now they had adopted the courteous form of postponing it. If, however, Bills were put down from time to time, it might be necessary to revert to the earlier practice. The noble Lord now asked whether it would be irregular to again put down the Bill which he had mentioned, and in reply he had to say that it certainly would not be irregular.

HIGH SHERIFFS—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked, whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce in the next Session a Bill dealing with the office of High Sheriff?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): I have given directions that a Bill be prepared, carrying into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat to consider this question.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.