Sitting of 27 February 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Sunday Closing Acts (Ireland), appointed.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1887–8): CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS, Votes 21, 2, 3; CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 9, 6, 10, & 17; CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE, Votes 5, 11, 16, 19, & 28; CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART, Votes 4
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [February 24] reported—Ordered—First Reading—East India (Purchase and Construction of Railways) * [143].
Resolution in Committee—Ordered—Frst Reading—Companies' Acts Consolidation and Amendment* [144].
Ordered—First Reading—Employers' Liability for Injuries to Workmen* [145]; Metalliferous Mines* [140]; Land Law (Ireland) Act (1887) Amendment (Arrears of Rent)* [147]; Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Extracts* [148.]

QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord ARTHUR HILL)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
I have received with much satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address.
I rely with confidence on your assurance that you will give careful consideration to the Measures that will be submitted to you; and I trust that the result of your deliberations will be effectual in promoting prosperity and concord among all classes of My People.

MERTOPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord ARTHUR HILL)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
I have received your Address praying that a Royal Commission may be issued to inquire and report upon the working of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and into the irregularities which are alleged to have taken place in connection therewith, and assuring Me that you will concur in empowering such Commission to take Evidence on Oath, to compel Attendance of Witnesses, to grant Certificates of Indemnity to Witnesses in such cases as may be desirable and proper, and to call for all necessary records and documents. And I have given directions that a Commission shall issue for the purposes which you request, and that a Bill shall be submitted to Parliament for conferring on such Commission the powers recommended by you as expedient for the purposes of the Inquiry.

QUESTIONS.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—INFECTIOUS DISEASES—COMPULSORY NOTIFICATION.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the President of the Local Government Board, In how many boroughs of the United Kingdom the compulsory notification of smallpox and other infectious diseases is compulsory; and, if, having regard to the increased density of population and the additional public danger of infec-
  1470
  tious diseases, Her Majesty's Government contemplated the introduction, of a Bill to extend such compulsory notification, either to all the boroughs not at present possessing such powers, or to those in which the majority of the ratepayers may elect, by their representatives in the Town Councils, to adopt them?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The system of compulsory notification of infectious diseases is in force in England and Wales in 43 boroughs and four Local Board districts. I have no precise information at the present moment with regard to Scotland and Ireland; but if my hon. Friend wishes I will procure it. The question as to the introduction of a Bill to extend the system of compulsory notification is under consideration.

  RIOTS, &c. (IRELAND)—CITY OF CORK.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many citizens of the City of Cork were injured on the occasion of Mr. Lane's release from prison; what was the number, names, and technical medical terms of the wounds inflicted on the people, and what was the name or names of the responsible medical men who attended them; what was the exact number of police injured, the technical medical terms of the injuries inflicted, if any, and the name of the doctor or doctors who treated them; and, on how many occasions since December have there been similar collisions with the police?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: It would not be practicable to obtain in a definite form the information asked for in the first two paragraphs. As regards the remaining portions of the Question, the Inspector General of Constabulary reports that eight policemen were injured on the occasion referred to. Three of these are under medical treatment—one for contusion of the back, another for concussion of the brain, and the third for a cut or injuries to the face through being struck with a stone. Drs. Lawton and Curtis are attending them. Many more of the police were struck with stones, but they were not injured. On one other occasion only since December has there been a colli-

  1471
  sion between the people and the police.
  DR. TANNERwished to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman how it was that he could not give the information as to the citizens, inasmuch as all he would have to do would be to ask for it at the door of the north and south infirmaries in Cork, where full information regarding all the cases treated was registered?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman asked him for a list of the cases treated he would be happy to get that information for him.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman how it is that he can give me a report only as regards the policemen, and that he cannot give me information as regards the citizens. He tells us that one of these policemen was suffering from a contusion of the back, which might be produced by the most trivial cause, and yet he can say nothing about the public who were injured?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !
  MR. J. O'CONNORasked whether, on the occasion in question, the Riot Act had been previously read to the people before they were ordered to disperse?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have already stated that there was only one occasion since January last when there was a collision between the police and the people; and on that occasion a large crowd attempted to force their way through a body of police who were guarding the gaol, and the police then charged them with their batons.

  ARMY—COLONEL PHILIP DICKSON.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been directed to the case of Colonel Philip Dickson; if he has received a copy of his pamphlet; and, if any redress can be given him in the shape of Colonial appointment?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State's attention has been called to this case, and a copy of the pamphlet relative to the circumstances under which Lieutenant Colonel Dickson was placed on half-pay upwards
  1472
  of 23 years ago has been laid before him. The officer's case was very carefully considered at the time, and the Secretary of State is not prepared to re-open it.

  SCOTLAND—INSPECTORS OF MINES (WESTERN DISTRICT).
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will appoint some additional Inspectors of Mines in the Western District of Scotland?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): In comparing the West Scotland district with the other coal-mining districts of the United Kingdom, I find that the proportion of accidents and deaths relatively to the number of men employed and the tons of coal raised is extremely favourable—in fact, more favourable than almost any other district. Every case of accident has been investigated by the Inspector, who has also found time, with the help of the Assistant Inspector, to make many underground examinations in cases where there are neither accidents nor complaints. Under these circumstances, I do not see that any present necessity exists for appointing additional Inspectors in that district.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman had not given the House to understand that additional Inspectors would be appointed?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, his memory did not serve him as to any undertaking that he might have given. Any undertaking he had given he would, of course, abide by. He had given the hon. Member the result of inquiries he had made since last Session; and he was happy to say that the West of Scotland came out most favourably.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, if the right hon. Gentleman could tell the House how many pits there were, and how many Inspectors, in the district in question?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid he had the figures, but he was unable to carry them in his memory. If the hon. Member wished to know, he would tell him privately, or the hon. Member could put a Question on the Paper.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—EXPORTS FROM GERMANY, 1885–1886.
  COLONEL BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can supplement the figures given in Mr. Giffen's article in The Board of Trade Journal for February, by stating the amount of the exports from Germany in 1885 and 1886?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): It would be impossible to bring down the figures generally in Mr. Giffen's Report to a later date than is contained in it, as the figures were mostly collected from the Blue Books of many foreign countries and British Possessions, and when the Report was prepared some of these countries had not issued their detailed statistics for a later year than 1885. Some later figures could be given; but, the Report being a comparative one, the sames dates were taken throughout. The Statistical Abstract for Foreign Countries, now in the press, will contain many of these later figures, including the exports from Germany referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.

  ISLANDS OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC —THE CONVENTION OF 1847.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, For what reason Her Majesty's Government assent to the abrogation of the Convention of 1847, whereby the independence of the Islands of Huahine, Raiatea, and Borabora, near Tahiti, was guaranteed; and, why the protection of life and property in Raiatea was not secured, as in the New Hebrides, by a Joint Commission, instead of handing over that Island to the French?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The reason why Her Majesty's Government assented to the abrogation of the Convention of 1847, relative to the Islands to the leeward of Tahiti, is stated in a despatch addressed to Her Majesty's Minister at Paris, which is printed along with the Convention relative to the New Hebrides, lately presented to Parliament. The last paragraph of that despatch is as follows:—
  "The result of this failure upon Raiatea has been that, contrary to all expectation, the
  1474
  French Protectorate has never teen made definitive. It does not, however, appear to Her Majesty's Government desirable, or, indeed, practicable, to remit to an aboriginal administration an Island which has been for some years under French government, as well as in view of the peculiar circumstances attending the failure of the Convention of 1885. They are willing to transfer the stipulation in question to the present Convention, subject, of course, to the undertakings given in a note verbale to Lord Lyons on the 24th of October, 1885."

  POST OFFICE—MAIL DESPATCHES TO THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. MONTAGUasked the Postmaster General, If Ms attention has been drawn to a Memorial addressed to the United States Postal Authorities by the leading bankers and merchants of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and other large cities in the United States, complaining of the loss and annoyance caused to them under the present system of mail despatches to the United States, owing to the mails from this side being frequently forwarded by steamers of a comparatively low rate of speed; and, whether he will take steps to promote the more rapid transit of mails from this country to the United States?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): My attention has been drawn to the Memorial referred to; but I may state that it is not exactly in the terms quoted by the hon. Member. After eulogizing the successful efforts made on the other side of the Atlantic to expedite the transmission of mails to Europe, it expresses regret that the Postal Administrations of "some European countries" appear not to manifest an equal interest in the prompt and speedy transmission of mails to the United States. I am not bound to accept this challenge as especially applicable to this country, particularly as the arrangements made last year for the use of the best of the Cunard and White Star steamers, as well as fast ships of other lines, seems to have given general satisfaction here. But the House will be aware that the efforts which the Post Office has made from time to time to adopt the American Transatlantic mail system have hardly received so much support in this country as would at present warrant a disturbance of the existing arrangements.

  ARMY (INDIA)—MADRAS—ARMY CLOTHING DEPARTMENT—EXCLUSION OF EUROPEAN ARTICLES.
  MR. HOYLEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If "the terms which the Secretary of State considers misleading in the advertisements" by the Superintendent of Army Clothing, Madras, for tenders for the year 1889–90, are those of the paragraph numbered 3 in the specifications—namely, "Articles of European manufacture are not required;" if so, would those terms exclude goods made in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and would they freely admit goods made in the United States of America; what was the total cost of advertisements last year for the goods amounting to £17,000 in value, of which only £24 in value were contracted for; and, will the Secretary of State for India feel obliged, in the interests of the Public Service, to cancel any and all contracts entered into in contravention of the pledge given to this House on the 10th of March, 1887?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): (1) Yes; but as regards goods from the United States the advertisement was not likely to have any practical consequences. (2) The cost of the advertisement is not known to the Secretary of State. (3) No; such a course would not, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be for the interest of the Public Service, and the Secretary of State is very doubtful whether he even has the power.
  MR. HOWELLasked, whether it was intentional that goods manufactured in the United Kingdom should be excluded?
  SIR JOHN GORST: No, Sir; I think I have answered that Question several times before. It was not intentional.
  MR. HOYLE: Did not the hon. Gentleman say last year—
  "The rule of the Service is fair competition between articles of Indian and European manufacture;"
  and will the Secretary of State see that effectually carried out?
  SIR JOHN GORST: Yes, Sir; I think that is what I said last year.

  WALES—THE TITHE AGITATION— CWM, CO. FLINT—ALLEGED ASSAULT BY AN EMERGENCY MAN.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the report is true that, at a farm named Marian Bach, situate in the parish of Cwm, in the County of Flint, during a settlement of tithe on Thursday, the 9th day of February, a Mrs. Davies, wife of the farmer, while standing in her own doorway, was either struck or pushed in the breast by an Emergency man, until she reeled backwards and fell; and that the Superintendent in charge of the police had to take him by the collar and remove him, in order to prevent a breach of the peace?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes; I have received a Report from the Chief Constable of Flintshire, who informs me that the date of the occurrence was the 26th of January, not the 9th of February. He states that not one of the allegations contained in the Question is founded on fact; but that, on the contrary, the Emergency man was assaulted by Mrs. Davies, who rushed at him and struck at him with a thick stick, but he parried off the blow, and she then retired.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—HOUSE OF LORDS —APPEALS.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked Mr. Attorney General, If he will lay upon the Table a Return showing what Appeals to the House of Lords remain undecided, and giving the dates when they were heard?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): There is not, in my opinion, any necessity for the Return asked for by the hon. and learned Member. I may add that there are only five appeals waiting for judgment, and they were all heard since the Long Vacation. The only case heard before the Long Vacation has to be re-argued.

  ARMY—HORSE BREEDING—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  BARON DIMSDALE(for Mr. CHAPLIN)asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the Government will undertake to give effect to the recommendation contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Horse Breeding:—
  "That, for the future, in the statistics of the export of horses, the number of stallions, mares, and geldings, shall be distinguished and classified."
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSasked, whether it would be possible to give a record of the breeds to which the exported stallions and mares belonged?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord JOHN MANNERS): I have been in communication with the Board of Trade and the Board of Customs on the subject of this Question, and am able to say that the statistics of the export of horses will in future be given in the form suggested by the Royal Commission on Horse Breeding. With regard to the other Question which has been put to me, I will have inquiry made as to whether it is possible to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  ARMY PENSIONS—INVALIDED SOLDIERS.
  MR. M. J. KENNYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a Rule in Her Majesty's Service that a soldier who has served 21 years, or is discharged as invalided a year or two before that time in consequence of ill-health brought on by long foreign service, is entitled to the full pension of 11 d. per day, and 2d. per day extra if invalided after nine years' service in India; whether Peter MacNee, late of the 21st Scottish Rifles, is so entitled to a pension of 1s. 1d. per day, having served altogether 19 years and eight months, over 18 years of which he served in India, and been discharged as invalided in consequence of general debility caused by foreign service; whether, instead of being granted the full pension of 1s. 1d. per day, to which he was entitled, he was granted on discharge only 1s. per day from the 3rd of August, 1887, and whether this was amended and reduced on the 23rd of November following to 11 d. per day; and, whether the War Office Authorities will reconsider the case of this old soldier, who has a good conduct badge, and as so
  1478
  long served Her Majesty, and, but for ill health, would have completed his full term?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: Peter MacNee was discharged after 19 years' qualifying service, which only entitles him to a pension of 11 d. a-day under the present Regulations. By the Regulations under which he enlisted his pension would have been smaller. There is no provision in the Royal Warrant for giving 2d. a-day extra for invaliding after nine years' service in India. I may add that the granting of pensions within the limits of the Royal Warrant rests entirely with the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital.

  VENEZUELA—EXPULSION OF A BRITISH OFFICIAL.
  MR. WATTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Representative, despatched by the Governor of the Colony of British Guiana to the territory declared by the Proclamation of last December to be part of the Colony, was compelled by Venezuelan authorities to appear before an official at Guacipati, detained for some days, and ordered to leave by a foreign route; and, if so, what action will be taken by the Government to resent this infraction of British rights by the arrest of a Colonial Representative?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Mr. McTurk, an official of British Guiana, was sent at the end of last year to ascertain the correctness of reported disturbances in the Yurnari district. No official Report of his journey has been received; but it is stated in a local newspaper that on his arrival at El Callao he was stopped by the Venezuelan authorities and required to return by the route open to the public. Mr. McTurk is understood to be on his way to Trinidad, and we must await his Report before forming any opinion upon what has happened. A telegram has been sent to Trinidad to ascertain the nature of his Report. The district in question has been for some time past in dispute between this country and Venezuela. The object of the Proclamation referred to was to safeguard any British rights which might be infringed

  1479
  by the concession for a railway granted by the President of Venezuela.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—COUNTY COURTS.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the attention of the Lord Chancellor has been called to the fact that at Woodbridge, on the 26th of September last, though the summonses were returnable at 11.30, the Court did not begin to sit until nearly 2, and that at Stowmarket, on the 5th of December, the Court, though summoned for 10, did not commence till 12.30; if he is aware that at Stow-market only nine Courts were held in 1883, five in 1884, six in 1885, five in 1886, and seven in 1887; if he will consult the Registrars as to the dates of the fixtures of County Courts in Suffolk during the last few years; and, if he will give instructions that monthly Courts shall be held in pursuance of 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, ss. 5, 6?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The hon. Member is aware that I have no control over County Courts. All that I can do is to bring the allegations of the hon. Member to the notice of the Lord Chancellor. This I have done, and inquiry is being made. I am informed that no representations have reached the Lord Chancellor that more frequent Courts are desired in Suffolk.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—STATISTICS.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table of the House any, and what, statistics relating to the cases which have been tried under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887;" and, if so, whether he will make the Return continuous?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: We purpose to lay upon the Table of the House, almost immediately, the same information as Earl Spencer gave after the Session of 1883. This will contain a Return, by counties, showing the number of persons proceeded against for each class of offences under the Act, together with the results of the proceed-
  1480
  ings up to the 31st of December, 1887. Had the form in which it has been printed been convenient, this would have been on the Table to-day; but we have had to send it back to Dublin for alterations. These statistics would, in ordinary course, be published annually, and I see no reason for having regular publications at more frequent intervals; but if the hon. Member cares to move for it at the proper time, so as to get a review of the working of the Act during the first six months of this year, there will be no objection to giving it to him.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say, whether the Return will show the names of the magistrates who tried the cases?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: No, Sir.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION COURT, KERRY—FAIR RENTS.
  MR. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many applications to fix fair rents have been lodged with the Land Commission Court for six months up to 1st February, 1888, in the County Kerry; in how many cases have fair rents been fixed by the Courts during the period; and, whether any steps will be taken to remove the block in the Land Court in that county, and so relieve applicants from impending ruin?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners inform me that during the period named 1,105 applications were lodged, and in 38 cases rents have been fixed in County Kerry. A Sub-Commission will sit in Kerry during the month of April.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—FOREIGN COMPETITION—MR. GIFFEN'S REPORT.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the President of the Board of Trade, When Mr. Giffen's Report and Tables relating to Foreign Competition will be in the hands of Members?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, the Report was in the hands of the printers, and it would be circulated in a few days.

  MALTA BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS— EXPENSES.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is proposed that the expenses of the Malta Boundary Commissioners shall be paid by the British or the Maltese Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The expenses of the Malta Royal Commission, which amounted to a little over £450, will be defrayed from Malta Funds. The Papers about to be distributed will show that, in addition to the actual expenses of travelling and living, Sir George Bowen, one of the Commissioners, was allowed an honorarium, at the rate of £5 per diem. The other Commissioner, Sir George Baden-Powell, when he accepted the Commissionership, declined to receive any remuneration, as being a Member of the House of Commons. The Papers about to be presented will contain an acknowledgment of the discretion and ability with, which the Commissioners discharged their functions.

  COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS— THE BULL ROCK.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, during the Recess, tenders were received, in response to advertisements of the Commissioners of Irish Lights inserted in the newspapers, for certain lenses and other apparatus for the new lighthouse at Bull Rock; whether the tender sent in by Mr. J. R. Wigham, for Messrs. Barbier and Co., of Paris, was the lowest tender received in answer to that advertisement; whether Mr. Wigham's and Messrs. Barbier's work has frequently been used with satisfaction by the Lighthouse Authorities; whether the Commissioners of Irish Lights consequently decided to accept Messrs. Barbier's tender; whether the Board of Trade interfered and interposed their statutory authority for the purpose of reversing the decision of the Commissioners of Irish Lights, and caused the order to be given to a firm whose tender was higher than that sent in by Mr. Wigham on behalf of Messrs. Barbier and Co.; whether this action of the Board of Trade was decided on at a
  1482
  full meeting of the members of the Board of Trade; and, whether he will state the grounds on which the action of the Board was based?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Three tenders for the supply of a dioptric apparatus for the Bull Rock Lighthouse were submitted in September last by the Commissioners of Irish Lights to the Board of Trade for their statutory sanction. The lowest tender was that of Messrs. Barbier and Fenestre, of Paris, amounting to £2,980. The next lowest was that of Messrs. Chance Brothers and Company, of Birmingham, amounting to £3,130. The Commissioners recommended the acceptance of the lowest tender. My Predecessor at the Board of Trade, noticing that this tender was only £150 below that of the British firm of Messrs. Chance and Co., and that, should the work be carried out by a French firm, this difference would be liable to be further reduced by the additional expenses to be incurred by the engineer in visiting France to inspect the work, decided that it would be desirable to depart from the usual custom of accepting the lowest trustworthy tender, and to place the work in the hands of the British firm.

  CRIMINAL LAW—MURDER OF ELIZABETH OLIVER AT EAST HULL.
  MR. GROTRIANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Elizabeth Oliver, aged 13, who was murdered in East Hull on the 8th of February, having, according to the medical evidence, been first outraged; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the perpetrator or perpetrators of this murder are still at large, he will recommend that a reward be offered by the Government for the discovery of those concerned in this outrage and murder?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to this case. The Home Office has for some years past discontinued the practice of offering rewards in such cases, on the ground that they have been found by experience not only to be ineffectual towards the detection of crime, but even to operate prejudicially. I do

  1483
  not feel justified in departing from this practice in the present instance.

  GAMBLING ACTS—PRIZE DRAWING AT STOKE-ON-TRENT.
  CAPTAIN HEATHCOTEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the prohibition of a prize drawing at Stoke-on-Trent; and, whether, when such prohibition was issued, he was aware that this prize drawing was for a charitable object, that the prizes are all voluntary contributions, and that the whole of the proceeds were to be devoted to the benefit of Mrs. J. B. Evans, a widow, who is now in straitened circumstances?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): My attention was called to the fact that such a lottery was about to take place. Under the circumstances, I was obliged to take notice of an act illegal and forbidden by statute, however deserving of sympathy the objects of the lottery might be. I accordingly communicated with the Director of Public Prosecutions, who issued his usual letter of warning to the persons whose names appeared on the printed prospectus.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROCEEDINGS AT RATHMORE PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. DEASY(for Mr. T. M. HEALY)asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the report in The Cork Herald, of 10th February, of the proceedings at Rath-more Petty Sessions, from which it appears that Mr. Cecil Roche endeavoured to secure precedence to cases under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, in opposition to the unpaid magistrates sitting with him; whether the following is a correct report of a portion of the proceedings:—
  "Mr. Roche: The local magistrates did not attend for two months, and the result is that the Crimes Act cases have been delayed by the hearing of the others.
  "Mr. Coltsman: I don't consider that the Crimes Court is entitled to take precedence of the ordinary Petty Sessions Court.
  "Mr. Leonard: Neither do I.
  "Mr. Roche: We will see what the Lord Chancellor has to say on the matter.
  1484
  "Mr. Coltsman: I must enter my strongest protest against the conduct of Mr. Roche. He endeavoured to intimidate the local magistrates from proceeding with the ordinary business of the Court, and he has threatened Mr. Leonard and myself with the Lord Chancellor. I need scarcely say that both Mr. Leonard and I disregard this threat, and we will do what we consider our duty;"
  whether the Government intend to take any notice of the language of Mr. Roche; if Mr. Roche did complain to the Lord Chancellor what reply he received; and, what power the Lord Chancellor has, and under what statute, to regulate the precedence of Petty Sessions cases?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): My attention has been called, by the Question of the hon. and learned Member, to the report in The Cork Herald referred to in the Question. I am unable to state whether the report is accurate in every particular; but it is the fact that a difference of opinion arose between the members of the Bench on the occasion in question as to the order in which the business before the Bench should be proceeded with. The Government do not intend to take any notice of what occurred on that occasion. Both parties represented their views to the Lord Chancellor, who, however, does not regulate the precedence of cases before Courts of Petty Sessions. I believe that the incident has now completely terminated.
  MR. DEASY: May I ask—and my Question arises out of the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman—whether he will not consider it to be his duty to see that the paid magistrates—the officers under the direction of Dublin Castle—are not permitted to intimidate the unpaid magistrates?
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: May I also ask whether Mr. D. Cronin Coltsman has been a magistrate of the County Kerry for 45 years, and whether he is not also a deputy lieutenant for that county, and also a large landowner in that county; and, whether this discussion occurred in open Court, and whether it was initiated by Mr. Cecil Roche?
  MR. MADDEN: I am not really aware of the facts with reference to Mr. Coltsman. The facts as stated by the hon. Member may be perfectly true.

  ALLOTMENTS ACT, 1887—CROWN LANDS—COMPULSORY PURCHASES.
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Clauses of "The Allotments Act, 1887," with reference to the compulsory purchase of land, can be put in force against the Crown, where the Crown is the owner of the lands?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The clauses of the Allotments Act as to compulsory purchase of land cannot be put in force against the Crown. The provisions of the Public Health Act and of the Lands Clauses Acts, as to the taking of lands compulsorily, are subject to the like limitation.
  MR. H. GARDNER: In how many cases have the compulsory clauses of the Act been put into force?
  MR. RITCHIE: No application has been made to the Local Government Board.

  INDIA (BENGAL)—WRECK OF THE "SIR JOHN LAWRENCE."
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been directed to a Report on the loss of the steamer Sir John Lawrence, addressed by the Members of the Marine Court of Inquiry to the Government of Bengal, which Report states, upon the evidence given in the inquiry, that not only was the Sir John Lawrence carrying more than her proper complement of passengers, but that
  "Every inducement exists for the captains, or even for the owners of the vessels engaged in the Chanobbally trade, to avail themselves of the opportunity to carry more than the licensed number of passengers;"
  "That the method of survey adopted under the auspices of the Port Commissioners and Port Officer is extremely unsatisfactory, and in urgent need of speedy and thorough reform; "
  and, if he can inform the House whether the Government of Bengal are taking steps to correct these abuses?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The attention of the Secretary of State has been directed to the Report in question. The Government of Bengal has already taken measures with a view
  1486
  to correcting these abuses. It has directed the Commissioner of Police at Calcutta and the Commissioner of Orissa to report fully upon the whole subject, with a view to the introduction of more stringent Regulations.

  SEA FISHERY DEPARTMENT—TRAWLING WITHIN TERRITORIAL WATERS.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If the Government will this Session introduce a Bill to give to the Sea Fishery Department powers to stop beam trawling within territorial waters on the English coast, where it is desirable so to do, similar to the powers already enjoyed by the Fishery Boards of Scotland and of Ireland, and recommended for adoption in England by the Parliamentary Commission of 1878, and again by the Royal Commission of 1885?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): This subject is only part of the general question of the regulation of fisheries within territorial waters, a scheme for which is now under the consideration of the Board of Trade. But as such a scheme would involve the creation of Local Authorities for the purpose, I think it would be premature to introduce a Bill at the present moment.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked the Lord Advocate whether a difference of opinion did not exist in Scotland as to the powers of the Scottish Fishery Board to stop beam trawling within territorial waters; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman would make an inquiry so as to give a decisive opinion on the subject?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Undoubtedly there is no power to close any fishing within the territorial waters in Scotland, except where the authority is satisfied that fishing by beam trawling there is injurious to some other mode of fishing in that part of the water; and hitherto, as I understand, nothing has been done in the way of closing up any fishings permanently. They have only been closed by way of experiment, in order to see whether it was injurious.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked, if the Lord Advocate held that the Fishery Board had power to stop fishing within the

  1487
  whole territorial waters at one and the same time?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDreplied, that he was not prepared to give a legal opinion on such very short notice.

  POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) —POSTAL ORDERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, Has he adopted any of the suggestions for the remedying the anomaly whereby the commission on postal orders for 19 s. 6d. costs more than postal orders for £1?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): No, Sir. Various suggestions with this object have been considered by my Department; but none of them has appeared completely satisfactory.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAL CHARGES AT SHANGHAI.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, Has he taken any steps to remedy the anomaly of the English Post Office at Shanghai charging 100 per cent more for the postage of letters to England than the French Post Office charges for postage of letters also to England?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the same Question asked by him on the 22nd of March last. I then said—
  "In the case referred to, the French Office does not incur a loss in sending the letters by British packets for 1½d.; but even at the 5d. rate a considerable loss is incurred by the British Office, because it has to pay heavily, not only for the sea service, but also for a special train service across Italy and France. Obviously, any reduction of the British postage "would involve additional loss."

  POST OFFICE CONTRACTS—THE AUSTRALIAN MAILS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, If it is true that a contract has been signed for seven years for the conveyance of mails to and from Australia; if it is true that the rate of speed for the mail steamers has been fixed at less than 12 knots an hour during the next seven years; is he aware that eight out of the 16 steamers now engaged on the contract can easily steam 16 knots an
  1488
  hour, and some of them in bad weather have averaged this rate of speed the whole distance to Australia; and, is he aware that, even going on what is known as an economical consumption of coal, these steamers have easily accomplished a 14½ knot speed from Australia on several occasions during the past few months?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Two such contracts have been entered into, subject to the approval of Parliament—one with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, and the other with the Orient Steam Navigation Company. The conditions as to speed are that the mails shall be carried (under penalties for overtime) in 32 days from Naples to Adelaide, and in 32½ days from Brindisi to Adelaide, including the landing of mails at King George's Sound, and all other stoppages that may be made on the voyage. Some of the steamers which will be employed in this service will, no doubt, be faster than others; and it is obvious that contractors undertaking a mail service under heavy penalties for overtime would not be bound by the time possible to their swiftest ships. Allowing for stops, the average running speed under these contracts may be reckoned at about 12 knots.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONwished to know, whether any premium was given for excess of speed?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I think it will be better to defer this Question until the contract is on the Table.

  RIOTS, &c. (IRELAND)—ALLEGED OUTRAGE AT BELFAST.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to an extraordinary statement in a London paper called The Star, purporting to describe a "revolting Orange outrage," alleged to have taken place in Belfast on Friday, and published in that evening's paper; whether there is any foundation for the statement that a funeral procession was attacked by the workers in the mill of Messrs. William Ewart and Sons; whether it is a fact that the funeral referred to happened

  1489
  to pass the mill when the workers were crowding in from dinner; and, whether any single person connected with the mill molested the procession in the slightest degree?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I have not seen the statement in the London paper referred to; but I have seen reports of the occurrence in The Belfast Morning News and in The Freeman's Journal. These reports are, according to the reports of the local Constabulary, considerably exaggerated; but I regret to find that a body of the mill workers were guilty of the disgraceful conduct of booing at and groaning at the funeral procession.

  THE FOOD SUPPLY—EXPORTATION OF CATTLE, &c. FROM THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
  MR. STEPHENSasked the President of the Board of Trade, with regard to the bounties on the exportation of live cattle and preserved beef and mutton from the Argentine Republic, Whether, for reasons and objects similar to those which prompted his intervention on behalf of the sugar industry, he proposes any action to relieve the struggling and depressed agricultural industry from the effects of foreign bounties?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): This is, doubtless, an important subject, and I have already given directions for the latest information with regard to it to be collected, with the intention of submitting it to the Agricultural Department and the Foreign Office, by whom it would be properly considered. But I may remind the hon. Member that the circumstances are by no means the same as existed in the case of the sugar bounties, and that the bounty given by the Argentine Republic is a very small one, amounting to about 1s. per cwt. of meat.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE— NUMBERS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any, and, if so, what additions have been made to the Metropolitan Police Force since August last?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, the increase to the strength of the Force up to the 1st of August last was 224.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSION FOR COUNTY DOWN.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact, as published in The Belfast Northern Whig of the 23rd instant, that the Sub-Commission for the County of Down will sit at Newry on 4th April, and at Ban-bridge on 4th May next; whether, considering the large number of originating notices to fix fair rents served by the tenants of the Lord Lieutenant, the Marquess of Downshire, Colonel Forde, and Lord Annesley, in the Unions of Newtownards and Downpatrick, he can now state on what dates a Sub-Commission will sit to hear applications from tenants in these Unions; and, whether it is intended to have only the one Sub-Commission sitting in the County of Down?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners state that a Sub-Commission for County Down will sit at Banbridge on the 4th April, and, as far as possible, dispose of the applications from the north side of the county. The sitting at Newry, although at present fixed for the 1st of May, will be open to re-arrangement as occasion may justify. It is intended to have only one Sub-Commission sitting in the County Down.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSION FOR COUNTY DONEGAL.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state when the Sub-Commission for County Donegal will hear the fair rent applications entered from the Union of Stranorlar, the Union of Strabane, and the district of Dunfanaghy; and, whether he is aware that a large number of tenants residing in this Union had their originating notices served on the Land Commission before the gale day at November last, and, although entitled to the benefit of the reduced rent in respect of the half-year expiring on the gale

  1491
  day next previous to the passing of "the Irish Land Act, 1887," they will be obliged to pay the old rent up to the date of the decision of the Commissioners?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners inform me that on the 14th of October last there were but nine cases unheard in the Stranorlar Union, five in the Strabane Union, and four in the Dunfanaghy Union. They were not at present in a position to say when the application from these Unions will be heard. The Sub-Commission which has been sitting in the County Donegal since the 10th of January continue there until the end of April; but its time will be fully occupied by applications from the remaining Unions of the county, all of which were entered prior to the 14th of October. As regards the latter portion of the Question, it is to be observed that where a tenant has made application prior to the gale day next following the passing of the Act quoted, he will be entitled to deduct any over-payment he may have made for the half-year expiring on that gale day upon the judicial rent being fixed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in the Union of Stranorlar alone there were 200 notices lodged in November?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I am not aware of that.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—PETTY SESSIONS COURT, KANTURK—REFUSAL OF SUMMONS.
  DR. TANNERasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If it is a fact that a young man named Patrick Hongan, within the past fortnight, applied for a summons to the Petty Sessions Clerk at Kanturk against Constable Egan of that town, and that the clerk refused to issue a summons without the directions of a magistrate; whether Hongan then applied to Mr. Crawford, J. P., who refused to grant a summons until Hongan went before the Petty Sessions Bench and formally there applied for same; whether Mr. Crawford, at Kanturk Petty Sessions, on Saturday last, the 18th instant, stated from the Bench that it was always
  1492
  the custom not to issue summonses against policemen without the sanction of the Bench; and, whether there is any legal foundation for such a custom?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): The facts are correctly stated in the Question of the hon. Member. The Petty Sessions Clerk, in refusing to issue a summons under the circumstances mentioned in the Question without the direction of a magistrate, was acting not merely in accordance with custom, but in pursuance of instructions which he had received from a full Bench of Magistrates. Under the Petty Sessions Act it is the duty of the clerk to issue summonses under the direction of the Justices; and it is quite competent to the Justices to give any directions which they may think necessary for the purpose of protecting the process of the Court from abuse.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE LORD LIEUTENANT'S COUNTY DOWN TEN ANTS.
  MR. DILLON(for Mr. M'CARTAN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Lord Lieutenant, with a view to make a settlement with, or to sell their holdings at 20 years' purchase, to his County Down tenants, extended the time within which they could make applications to have fair rents fixed and be entitled to the reduction on the half-year's rent due at 1st November last, as provided by the fifth section of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887;" whether he can state how many originating notices to fix fair rent were served on the Land Commission by the tenants of His Excellency between the 31st of October last and the 1st of February instant; whether notices were served on the tenants who had not made application to the Court, offering 20 per cent reduction on the old rents; and, whether, considering that there are upwards of 4,000 applications at present entered for hearing in the County of Down, and that one Sub-Commission could not dispose of all these cases for years, he will now consider the desirability of having a new Sub-Commission appointed for the County of Down?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (who replied) said: I hardly understand the inquiry contained in the first paragraph. In order that the tenants should be entitled to the reduction on the half-year's rent due the 1st of November, the Act requires that the application should have been made before that date. If a landlord desires to give his tenants the benefit of any reduction made in cases in which they made application after the 1st of November, and allow them an abatement on the six months' rent to that date, it is altogether a matter of personal arrangement. I am not, however, aware of the Lord Lieutenant having done so. The number of originating notices referred to in the second paragraph was 19. I have no knowledge as regards the third paragraph. The number of applications from the County Down is 3,645. The Land Commissioners will consider whether any course can be adopted to effect the hearing of these cases within a reasonable time.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SPECIAL REPORT SCHEDULES.
  MR. DILLON(for Mr. M'CARTAN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Special Report of the Irish Land Commission, dated 3rd January, 1888, and presented to the House on Wednesday last, does not contain copies of the Schedule and Supplemental Schedule referred to therein; whether, considering the numerous complaints that the reductions made by the Land Commission were by no means commensurate with the fall in the prices of produce, and that the same machinery has to be resorted to for 1888 and 1889, he will give a Return of Copies of these Schedules, with the answers given thereon by the scrutineers; whether the suggestion, No. 1, made in the Letter of the Land Commission of the 25th of August, and copy of which is appended to the Special Report, has been in any instance carried out by the scrutineers; and, if so, in what Unions differences have been made in the revision of judicial rents by reason of "one portion being a mountain and the other portion a lowland district;" whether he can state the names of the persons in the County of Down with whom "the Supplemental Schedules on thin paper," referred
  1494
  to in Suggestion No. 2, were left to be filled, as directed, "at the request" of the scrutineers; and, whether he can mention at what dates respectively the scrutineers for the County of Down were instructed to have their Schedules and Supplemental Schedules filled up and returned?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I am aware of the circumstances mentioned in the first paragraph. The Land Commissioners inform me that they have no objection to furnish copies of the Schedules referred to, and which they state were at the time communicated to the public Press. They cannot, however, undertake to give the answers furnished by their scrutineers, nor the names of the persons in the County Down with whom the Supplemental Schedules were left. The Returns of the scrutineers did indicate, in most instances, the characteristics of the Union dealt with, as regarded its mountain and lowland districts. The scrutineers were directed to return their Schedules and Supplemental Schedules as soon as they should have obtained the information called for.

  RATING ASSESSMENTS—EXEMPTION OF LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
  MR. KIMBERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government, in any Bill to be introduced this Session, to provide for the removal of the existing exemption of lunatic asylums from the ordinary assessment for rating purposes, which relieves the county at the expense of the particular parish in which the asylum is situate?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Government do not propose to bring in a Bill dealing with the assessment of rates on lunatic asylums; but an opportunity will arise for the hon. Gentleman to raise the question when the Lunacy Acts Amendment Bill is before the House.

  THE ROYAL FAMILY—ADDITIONAL GRANTS.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government still adhere

  1495
  to the undertaking given by the Government of the day in 1885, not to propose any new grants to Members of the Royal Family until the whole subject has been considered by a Committee of this House?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): As I do not apprehend it will be the duty of the Government to propose any new grants to Members of the Royal Family at any very early date, I think it inadvisable to enter into any engagement with the House with regard to what may possibly be remote contingencies; and I must refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answers I gave to him and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) last Monday with reference to the appointment of a Committee.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked, whether the House was to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that the Government did not depart, and did not intend to depart, from the understanding given in 1885?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have answered the Question already, both last Monday and to-day. I cannot vary my answer in the slightest degree.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, that his Question was, whether the Government still adhered to the understanding given by the Government of the day in 1885, not to propose any new grants to Members of the Royal Family until the whole subject had been considered by a Committee of that House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not able to accept the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government of 1885 did enter into any such undertaking. But, whether that is so or not, I am not prepared to give any such undertaking with reference to what I believe to be remote contingencies. I have stated the course which the Government think it right to follow.

  PUBLIC BILLS—AMENDMENTS TO QUESTION FOR SECOND READING —PAROCHIAL BOARDS, &c. BILL —CROFTERS, &c. BILL.
  DR. CAMERONasked Mr. Speaker, Whether the Parochial Boards Bill, the second reading of which was merely negatived on Wednesday without the Amendment "this day six months" being carried, could
  1496
  be put down again for a second reading?
  MR. A. SUTHERLANDput a similar Question with, regard to the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act (1886) Amendment Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: With regard to the Parochial Boards (Scotland) Bill, the second reading of which was negatived on Wednesday last, the position is this—inasmuch as no Amendment was moved "that the Bill be read a second time this day six months," and all the House determined was "that the Bill be not now read a second time," it is therefore competent for the hon. Gentleman to set up the Bill again and put it down for a second reading on a future day. The same Rule applies to the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act (1886) Amendment Bill, the circumstances, if I recollect, being identically the same.

  TURKEY—THE DARDANELLES— ALLEGED PURCHASE OF AN ISLAND.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether there is any truth in the statement in a leading article in Le Temps newspaper, that Her Majesty's Government have procured or asked from the Turkish Government the cession of a port or of an Island in the neighbourhood of the Dardanelles?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I have no hesitation in answering my hon. Friend. There is no foundation whatever for that statement, or for any of the other statements in the article in question.

  THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE, 1888—RULE 1 (SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE).
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I wish to put a Question to you, Sir, on a point of Order, in reference to the new Rule which was passed on Friday. I wish to know whether, under the new Rule, no Notice of opposition to a Bill or a Motion on the Paper under the half-past 12 o'clock Rule will take place unless the opposition comes from an hon. Member in his place?
  MR. SPEAKER: As I read the Resolution passed by this House on Friday

  1497
  last, its purport appears to be this—that after 12 o'clock it is sufficient to retard the further progress of any Bill for any hon. Member to say "I object." I am not prepared to say that the half-past 12 Rule has been abolished; but it has certainly fallen into desuetude, or will fall into desuetude, by the operation of the Rule which was passed on Friday last. But if half-past 12 o'clock be reached I am not prepared to say that the Rule, in regard to what is called a Blocking Motion, would not come into operation; but, as the hon. Member will observe, it is sufficient after 12 to stop the further progress of a Bill by an hon. Member objecting to the time at which it is proposed to bring it on.

  THE ESTIMATES.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the Vote for Salaries, Allowances, and Travelling Expenses of Resident Magistrates in Ireland, Whether he could see his way to postpone the consideration of that Vote, inasmuch as there were two or three Votes before it which he was informed would give rise to considerable discussion, and then they could hardly be called upon to discuss the Irish Vote in a small portion of one night's Sitting?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I think there is every reason to believe, and hope, that the Votes preceding Vote 28, referred to by the hon. Member, will not take up much time, as they are not of a contentious character, and I trust that this particular Vote may be reached at a very early hour, leaving ample time for its discussion. The hon. Gentleman is aware that unless the Votes on the Paper are got through at this Sitting it will be impossible for me to ask the House to consider the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) on Thursday next. I am exceedingly desirous that an opportunity should be afforded to bring on the Motion; but if Supply is not finished to-night it would be necessary to continue it on Thursday.
  MR. DILLON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that if the other Votes take considerable time there will be another opportunity found for discussing this Vote
  MR. W. H. SMITH: That is the only Vote on which we expect considerable discussion.
  MR. DILLON: Is there not prolonged discussion expected on the Chamberlain Vote?
  An hon. MEMBER: That comes on after the Irish Vote.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state to the House definitely when the Army and Navy Estimates will be laid before the House; also when the printed Paper setting forth the usual Statement will be furnished?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We have every reason to hope that the Army Estimates will be distributed on Thursday, and I trust the Navy Estimates will be ready on Friday or Saturday. The Army Estimates will be proceeded with on Monday next. The Navy Estimates will follow on Thursday, if it is possible to do so.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: As to the Supplementary Estimates to come on to-night, I should like to ask whether, as to the Vote of £18,000 for New Guinea, any money has already been expended by the Treasury under that head?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): No, Sir.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Why is it put down in the Supplementary Estimates?
  MR. JACKSON: Because it is necessary to make provision in the financial year for expenditure which is intended to come within the year.
  MR. CHILDERSasked, was it intended to take the Army Estimates on Monday on short notice?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: My experience is that they generally have been taken on short notice. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that there has been considerable delay with regard to the Estimates. It is proposed to take the debate on going into Committee of Supply on Monday next on the Army Estimates.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, when the Civil Service Estimates would be laid before the House?
  MR. LABOUCHEREgave Notice that he should move to reduce Vote 1 by £3,900 (Mr. Chamber-

  1499
  lain's Mission), and a further reduction on a subsequent Vote relating to Jubilee expenses of £5,658.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1887–8).
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1887–8).

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    (1.) £13,000, Supplementary, Public Buildings, Ireland.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it was very difficult to appreciate the value of these Supplementary Estimates, with copies of the original Estimates to which they were Supplementary being in the hands of hon. Members. He had found on inquiry at the Vote Office that there was scarcely a copy to be obtained. He had, however, succeeded in obtaining a copy, and on looking at it he found that the figures given in the Supplementary Estimates did not agree with those which appeared in the original Estimate. The original Estimate was for £62,000 odd for National Education Buildings; whereas the sum now put down in the present Vote as the original Estimate was £59,478. He desired to ask one or two questions in regard to this particular Vote, which was one that had come before the Public Accounts' Committee on more than one occasion, and after subjecting it to a detailed examination the result had invariably been unsatisfactory. Last year the Committee were assisted by a representative of the Board of Works in Ireland, and it was found that several irregularities had occurred during the financial year then under discussion. The Representative of the Treasury who appeared before the Committee was utterly unable to give any explanation of the relations between the Treasury itself and the Board of Works in Ireland with respect to the expenditure of public money. The Treasury official, however, admitted that certain irregularities had taken place on the part of the Board of Works. Hon. Members might suppose on looking at this Supplementary Estimate that there was some unforeseen
    1500
    expenditure to be met in the financial year amounting to £13,000. According to the original Estimate, it would appear that the whole amount for the year was £75,478; but that sum had been reduced by £13,000, showing an apparent economy to the extent of £13,000. There could not be a more misleading case. The economy effected in the Vote figured last year at the sum of £13,000; but the Committee were now told that the grants for ordinary literary schools, in addition to a Vote of £35,000, were required to the extent of £13,000, that being precisely the sum which they stated to have been saved. In fact, this Supplementary Estimate wiped away the whole of the economy effected last year in this Department. The whole Estimate was based on a system which had nothing to say for itself in respect of real economy; but it was calculated to mislead and delude the Committee of Supply. The Public Accounts' Committee on many occasions had found it necessary to consider the irregularities of the Board of Works in Ireland, and the fact that they were in the habit of spending large sums of money without the Treasury knowing anything of the matter until months after the expenditure had been incurred. At present he would content himself by asking the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) whether this sum of £13,000 represented the sum which was put down last year as a saving?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was always afraid that any proposal to save money upon Irish Votes was only made the means of simply throwing good money after bad. They had been given to understand lately that the financial authorities of the Government were about to take steps to minimize as much as possible the Supplementary Estimates. There were unusually favourable circumstances why that should have been done this year, seeing that there was no apprehension of war, and no Supplementary Estimates for the Naval and Military Services. So far, however, from the Department having taken the trouble to avoid Supplementary Estimates, they had come to the House to ask it to pass Votes greater in number than ever. The Civil Service Supplementary Estimates would be found to be a fat volume—a good deal more

    1501
    numerous than in previous years. Some of the items were ridiculously small in amount; in one instance he saw that the amount to be voted was only £1.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY)said, the hon. Gentleman was referring to Estimates which were not now under the consideration of the Committee.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he felt that he had gone somewhat beyond the consideration of the present Vote. He thought, however, it was a lamentable fact that the Departments were not able to cut their coat according to their cloth.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I am precluded by your ruling, Sir, from following the hon. Gentleman into the Vote of £1 that becomes necessary on the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade; but the Supplementary Estimates on this occasion are not, as the hon. Member has described, "a fat volume." They are by no means as large this year as they have been in previous years. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: I said more numerous.] If the hon. Gentleman will examine them, I am sure he will find that they are fewer in number and considerably smaller in amount than they have ever been on any previous occasion. The Supplementary Estimates this year are about £130,000, whereas last year they amounted to £515,000. That shows, I think, that great care and effective control have been exercised by the Department, and the Department itself may take credit for the examination to which the Estimates were subjected before they were presented to Parliament last year. As to the control exercised over the expenditure, I think there has been a greater improvement in the administration than ever characterized the previous Estimates. There is another point which touches one of the questions raised by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor)—not one of these Estimates would have been evaded, and the fact that they have been so little exceeded in amount is due to the action of the Department, and those responsible for examining the Estimates as originally sent in. In answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Donegal, I find the first objection which he took was on comparing the
    1502
    original Estimate with the amount now required in the shape of Supplementary Estimates. The discrepancy between the original Estimate and the statement which now appears in the Supplementary Estimate is accounted for in this way. The hon. Member will remember that last year there was a proposal to take £3,000 for the Ulster Canal. The House of Commons decided to strike that item out, and consequently the original Estimate was reduced by £3,000, which, it will be found, represents exactly the difference between the original Estimate and the statement given in the Supplementary Estimate. The total sum for new works and alterations was £62,478 in the original Estimate, owing to the fact that £3,000 were asked for the Ulster Canal. With regard to this very item, I may point out that the reduction of the general Vote has nothing to do with the Supplementary Estimate which is presented on this occasion; because the hon. Member, if he refers to the original Estimate, will find that the sum taken for grants for ordinary literary schools was £35,000. As a matter of fact, the expenditure proved to be more than £35,000, and the £13,000 the Committee are now asked to vote is the amount, with certain savings on the general Vote, which it is necessary to provide in order to make up the amount expended on the National literary schools. The fact referred to by the hon. Member that the sum of £13,000 now asked for represents the reduction on the Estimate as compared with 1886–7, is a mere accidental coincidence. These grants are dependent upon the progress which has been made upon the building of schools to which the grants are applied, and the favourable weather in the past year enabled greater progress to be made with the buildings than had been expected. It is rather difficult to estimate beforehand how much in a particular year the Treasury may be called upon to grant. I hope I have shown that there is no discrepancy between the original Estimate and this Supplementary Estimate; and, further, that the cutting down of the works estimated on a former occasion has nothing to do with the sum the Committee are now asked to pass. The two questions are entirely distinct, and, as I have pointed out, it

    1503
    is due to greater progress having been made with the buildings for which, the grants were made than it was possible to foresee.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I do not see that the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury errs on the side of lucidity. I was just as wise when the hon. Member sat down as I was when he got up. The hon. Gentleman gave two reasons for these Supplementary Estimates. One was that £3,000, intended to have been spent upon the Ulster Canal, were not included in the Vote, although that expenditure had been estimated for in the original Vote for Works. Now, I want to know what possible connection there can be, or ought to be, in this Supplementary Estimate between Votes for building ordinary literary schools and a Vote for the Ulster Canal? Can anything show more clearly the ridiculous jumble in which the Estimates are presented to Parliament than to drag in the Ulster Canal in connection with the ordinary literary schools? The hon. Gentleman says that the expenditure on the ordinary literary schools has been greater by £13,000 on account of the extraordinarily favourable weather for enabling progress to be made with building operations. Before I accept that statement, I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee what was the particular month of the year which was so extraordinarily favourable for the purposes of building as to enable this increased sum to be spent. That is the sort of explanation which is given from time to time when information is demanded in regard to increased expenditure. There is only too frequently an explanation of this farfetched and rococo character instead of the explanation which the Committee is entitled to demand. The original grant for ordinary literary schools last year was £35,000. Why, then, did the Treasury allow the Board of Works to expend £13,000 more? Was it done with the sanction of the Treasury, and did the Board of Works apply directly for the sanction of the Treasury? I think that the whole of this amount might have been well included in the Estimates for the coming year, if the statement of the hon. Gentleman is correct that last year the Vote showed a saving of £13,000.
    1504
    The whole of that saving appeared now to be eaten up by the increased Estimate now presented to the Committee. All I can say is, that the whole treatment of financial matters submitted to the House of Commons is distinctly illusory, and discreditable to the Treasury.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The explanation of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) was not only an explanation of the Vote upon the Paper, but an answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who asked certain questions. The noble Lord does not seem to appreciate that the amount was cut down on the one hand and was raised on the other. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: That is what I am appreciating.] The noble Lord did not appreciate it, because he asked why my hon. Friend had referred to the reduction of £3,000 on the Ulster Canal. As the hon. Member for East Donegal had alluded to the cutting down of the original Estimate, it was the duty of my hon. Friend to explain why it had been done. The statement was not that of my hon. Friend, but that of the hon. Member opposite; because my hon. Friend pointed out that the cutting down of the original Estimate had nothing to do with this particular Vote. As to the increase in the Vote, I frankly admit—and I am sure that the noble Lord will join with me—that the general situation in which the Treasury and the Board of Works stands in connection with the National Schools in Ireland is a most unsatisfactory one, and requires continual watchfulness. It is more or less an automatic expenditure, over which the control of the Treasury is not anything like what it ought to be. The intention has been that the Board of Works should give this money without the previous assent of Parliament, which I think is a monstrous proposition. I entirely demur to the idea that Parliament should have no control over the amount that is to be spent in a given year, and over the measures that should be taken to exercise control over the expenditure upon the schools. Unless that is done, it will never be possible for Parliament to know distinctly in any given year how much money is likely to be expended. It

    1505
    appears that more has been spent this year than is generally spent; but it is not the fault of the Treasury that there should have been an excess this year. I can assure the noble Lord that every care will be taken to prevent a recurrence in future of the unsatisfactory state of things which has been complained of.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I be allowed to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Board of Works can spend money on these schools without the assent of the Treasury? I apprehend that they cannot; but that any expenditure beyond the Estimate must have obtained the sanction of the Treasury. I want to know whether that is not the case?
    MR. JACKSON: Yes; but I think I can satisfy the noble Lord that the Treasury, as far as possible, took every precaution they could. [Lord Randolph CHURCHILL made a remark which was inaudible.] Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to answer the question in my own way as far as I can. I must first state to the Committee how the matter stands and how these grants are made. The grants are made to the extent of two-thirds of the estimated cost of building schools in Ireland. Applications are sent to the National Education Commissioners in Ireland, by whom the grants are made. They have, in the first instance, to give their approval to every scheme for the erection of schools, and the grants are made to them. Plans are sent to the Board of Works, and the Board of Works are charged with the duty of paying the money which has been granted by the National Education Commissioners. The Board of Works makes the payments from time to time on the certificate of the architect and surveyor that a certain amount of work has been done, and certain amounts become payable. Towards the end of last year I went over to Dublin, and in the course of my investigation, I found that the amount of money that had been voted by Parliament for these services had been exhausted. [Mr. Arthur O'CONNOR: What month?] In December. I at once caused a letter to be written to the Education Commissioners drawing their attention to the fact, and pointing out that no more money was at the disposal of the Treasury for the financial year. The consequence of that was that a stop
    1506
    was put to the payments by the Board of Works, and no furthur payments were made without the sanction of the Treasury. I think that is an answer to the noble Lord's question as to whether the Board of Works spent the money without the sanction of the Treasury. I have pointed out that the Board of Works did not spend money without the sanction of the Treasury, and I will now explain why the sanction of the Treasury was given. These schools for which grants have been sanctioned are spread all over Ireland. The sanction to their erection is first given by the National Education Commissioners, and subsequently by the Board of Works. It would entail extreme hardship if, after the grants have been made, and the buildings have made progress in the belief that under the conditions of the grant, the money expended would be repaid, it would entail extreme hardship to arrest their progress, and moreover would be extremely difficult to do so. I have called the attention bath of the Board of Works and of the National Education Commissioners to this matter in such a way that I believe in future the making of these grants will be placed on a better footing; but I do not feel that the Treasury would be justified in repudiating them, because they would have been repudiating what was a distinct contract entered into between the National Education Commissioners and the Board of Works on making these grants. If economy is to be effected, it must be on the original granting of the money, more than upon the Estimates. The money which becomes payable this year is not the money granted tills year. A portion of the money expended this year was granted in 1884–5, a further portion in 1885–6, and a third portion in 1886–7. It must necessarily be that the payment of the money and the build-of the schools must follow at some considerable period subsequent to that on which the grant was made. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has touched slightly upon what has been a difficulty in the past. I think there has been a misunderstanding as to the power of the Commissioners of National Education to act separately and independently of the action of the Board of Works. I can safely say that in future the Estimates will be framed in conjunction with and upon the approval

    1507
    of the National Education Commissioners, and we shall, as far as it is possible to do so, limit the grants within the year's Estimate so as to prevent any excess in a future year. I do not say that that will be possible next year, because, now that the question has been raised, I feel it my duty to be perfectly frank with the Commissioners, and I may tell them that when I went to Dublin and discovered this fact—that not only had the grant of last year been exhausted, that not only had the Board of Works no more money at their disposal, but that grants, which in the ordinary course will and must be met before the end of the financial year, had been made by the Education Commissioners in excess of the provision made by Parliament. Immediately this was discovered, I determined to put the system upon some better footing; but that is too late now. If the House of Commons is anxious to say that the system of making grants for these buildings by the National Education Commissioners from day to day and week to week shall be stopped, then of course Parliament has the power to do that, and will take the responsibility upon themselves. But as the matter stands at present, I do not think the Treasury has power to interfere with any of the grants already made, and I think I have shown my noble Friend that I have endeavoured, as far as I can, to put a stop to the present condition of things. My noble Friend referred to the way in which this Estimate is submitted to Parliament and to what I said about the Ulster Canal. Now, the amount which appears in the original Estimate of the year for the Ulster Canal was struck out, and that accounts for the discrepancy between the amount stated in the original Estimate and the amount which now appears in the Supplementary Estimate. If my noble Friend will refer to sub-head B, he will find that it covers various items besides grants for ordinary literary schools, and unless you are to have separate Estimates, I do not see how you are to avoid mixing up two or three subjects of this sort, all of them coming under the provision of the Board of Works and for which they are responsible.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he desired to support the course which his hon. Friend the Member
    1508
    for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had taken in regard to this Estimate. It was not often that he found himself in accord with the noble Lord the Member for South Padding-ton (Lord Randolph Churchill); but he did so on this occasion, and he desired to thank the noble Lord for the remarks he had made. It was obvious that the Estimates were purely illusory, and that the Government took no pains to ascertain how much money the National Education Commissioners had granted, notwithstanding the professions of economy with which they came to Parliament. Those professions of economy they knew to be altogether unreal. He had no wish to attribute to the Treasury that which he had no right to attribute to them; but it was quite clear that they paid away money without knowing what the real requirements under this head were, for it was evident that the Government were in ignorance of what was required until the Secretary to the Treasury went to Ireland in the month of December. Nothing could be more monstrous than the way in which these Estimates were prepared. The difference between the sum of £59,000 and £62,000 was accounted for by the cutting off of the item for the Ulster Canal; but the main objection was that a saving of £13,000 had been put forward which could only serve to delude the public. The Government appeared to take no pains to ascertain what amount of money they might be called upon to pay, and, according to the Secretary to the Treasury, he had discovered on his visit to Dublin, very much to his surprise, that it would be necessary to make provision for £60,000 more than he had any previous knowledge of. He protested against the Committee being asked blindly to vote a sum of money they know nothing about. They were obliged to take it on trust from the Treasury, and the Treasury appeared to know quite as little as they did about it.
    Mr. JACKSON: I will answer at once the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton. The economy of £13,000, to which he has alluded, had no reference in any form, shape, or manner to the question of the erection of literary schools.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that it happened to be the same amount.
    MR. JACKSON: That is only an accidental coincident.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, the hon. Gentlemen had said that until he went over to Ireland he did not know what grants had been made, and he then discovered that it would be necessary to make provision for £60,000 more. He understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the £13,000 had actually been expended.
    MR. JACKSON: I should like to keep the hon. Member to the £13,000, which happens to be the same amount as the saving effected last year. I wish to inform the hon. Member that the amount provided for the ordinary Public Works Vote proved to be sufficient, and more than sufficient, for the work done. The £13,000 deficit has reference to the grants for literary schools; therefore it is altogether inaccurate to say that the Government came to the House with illusory Votes, seeking to deceive the public. I would ask the hon. Member to consider the difficulties we have to encounter with regard to this Vote. The Treasury receive from the Board of Works an Estimate that will come in payment in the course of the year. That Estimate has to be framed in the month of November, and it is an Estimate of the sum likely to be expended in carrying on the building operations in certain schools in different parts of Ireland, some of which may not oven have been begun, and the information as to the progress of which cannot be determined by the Board of Works Itself, except upon a very rough and general Estimate. It is quite impossible for the Board to determine beforehand what schools will be begun at all within the financial year, and to say 15 months beforehand what progress will have been made with them during the year. I think I have shown the hon. Member that the £13,000 to which he has alluded have no reference to any public works except the literary schools.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he must trouble the Committee again. The matter had not been made clear yet. He understood the Financial Secretary to say that this money was granted in 1884–5 and 1885–6. Why, then, in November, 1886, when the Estimates were being prepared, could not the Secretary to the Treasury learn that which he learned afterwards? Why should he
    1510
    not have communicated with the authorities who controlled the building, or have learned what buildings were going to be undertaken during the year. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) would not say that the Estimate had been made out with an intention to deceive; but why should it have been made out in a manner which certainly had the effect of deceiving the House? The Government professed to be economical, whereas there was no saving at all.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: the Secretary to the Treasury has tried, with some success, to throw upon the National Education Commissioners and the Board of Works in Ireland the responsibility for the excess which amounts this year to £13,000, and next to £60,000, for contracts they have entered into without the consent of Parliament. What I say is, that if the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer desire to throw the responsibility on the National Education Commissioners and the Board of Works, they are trying to divest themselves of a responsibility which belongs to themselves. Everybody knows that the National Education Commissioners and the Board of Works will grant money lavishly, and with great freedom, if they have the power to do so. The only control over those two Bodies is the Treasury, and it will net do for the Secretary to the Treasury to get up in this House and throw the responsibility upon those Bodies, when we know that the Treasury itself possesses an absolute power of veto. It will not do, therefore, for the Treasury to say that the fault rests with the Commissioners of Education and the Board of Works. The very fact of the Commissioners of Education and the Board of Works having committed a fault shows that there must have been complicity on the part of the Treasury. I object, therefore, to the hon. Gentleman getting up in this House and endeavouring to exculpate the Treasury by throwing the responsibility upon other persons. Another point on which there has been a misunderstanding is that which was raised by the hon. Member for East Donegal and the hon. Member for Northampton. This is an Estimate for works amounting to more than £59,000, and the Supplementary Estimate this year shows that there has been no diminution. The Secretary to the Trea-

    1511
    sury may give any explanation he likes, but he cannot get rid of that fact. It is too much the habit in presenting a Vote to Parliament to present it in a light as favourable as possible; but invariably, when a saving is shown, it is discovered that all the economy is eaten up by an excess next year. The fact remains in this instance that the control of the Treasury over expenditure of this nature is illusory.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I will take the last point of the noble Lord first. I think the Committee will be prepared to accept from my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury the fact that, whatever the appearances may be, the deficiency of £13,000 has had nothing to do with the original Estimate. There is no connection between the two things. There must have been items to the amount of £13,000 cut off in the original Estimate; but they had nothing whatever to do with the present deficiency, and facts are facts. For the reason stated by my hon. Friend, the two figures which appear in the two sets of Estimates are identical. If one had been £15,000 and the other £8,000, instead of £13,000, it would have been necessary to make an intentional reduction in order to present an illusory balance sheet. Let me direct the attention of the Committee to this point—what object can the Government have in cutting down the expenditure if it is likely to lead to a Supplementary Estimate, because the credit gained for the reduction of the Estimate is certainly nothing like the discredit thrown upon the Government in regard to the introduction of a Supplementary Estimate! No Administration would run the risk of reducing the original Estimate if they foresaw that a Supplementary Estimate would be necessary. I therefore repudiate on the part of the Government the charge that they have been guilty of the conduct which has been imputed to them. And now I come to the next point—namely, the control of the Treasury. It is a fact that it has been held by the National Board of Education, erroneously I admit, but assented to by successive Governments, until the present Administration, that the National Board of Education in Ireland may make grants, and that to the extent of two-thirds of the expenditure. Parliament was bound to vote the money, the locality providing the remaining third. I am bound to say that,
    1512
    so far as I am concerned, I was not prepared to vote that principle for a moment, and I am obliged to the hon. Member opposite for having taken up the matter, because the discussion which has taken place will strengthen our hands in the future arrangements we make with the National Board. The National Board undoubtedly believe themselves to be acting within their right. We do not admit that, but until this year it was erroneously considered that where the locality provided one-third of the money to be expended, Parliament was bound to vote the remaining two-thirds. I come now to a third point, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, with regard to the alleged laches of the Government in not having determined in November last how much money should be spent. I can assure the hon. Member that there is nothing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasery desire more than to ascertain how much money will be spent in building operations in the course of a given year; but there is nothing more liable to fluctuation. We have not got the matter in our own hands. We do not build the schools; but they are built by contractors or by the local authorities, and in large operations it is impossible to say how much money within a few thousand pounds is likely to be spent in a given year. I admit that every effort must be made to ascertain that sum; but it is not an easy task, and the Treasury are unable to withhold the few thousands of pounds that may be necessary, seeing that their refusal would involve a suspension of the erection. If the schools are wanted, and more good progress is made with them in the financial year than was originally expected, it would be undesirable to withhold the public money which must be paid a few months later. Of course, it is very inconvenient to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has to make his calculation in regard to the Public Expenditure; but I think it is more advisable to carry on works of this nature rather than to turn away a large number of men who are engaged in the building of these schools towards the end of the year, in order to prevent an expenditure that would be sanctioned as a matter of course in February or March. The Secretary to the Treasury simply put down the money that was

    1513
    wanted when the Estimate was originally prepared.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: The Secretary to the Treasury said that there had been no communication from the Board of Works.
    MR. JACKSON: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I said there had been no communication from the Commissioners of National Education. I did not say there had been no communication between the National Education Commissioners and the Board of Works.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: That only shifts the responsibility to some other Board.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The Board of Works are our agents in Dublin, and they made the best Estimate they could in November last year; but in the case of buildings not yet commenced, it is a difficult task to know what money it would be necessary to spend within a given year. I trust the Committee will see that there has been no negligence on the part of the Treasury in regard to this matter.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not appreciated the point of his observations, possibly because he was not in the House when he made them. He thought the Committee would recognize that, although this item looked very simple and innocent, there was a great deal behind it which had not come to light, and which it was desirable to draw the attention of the Committee to. What they had to deal with lay hidden behind that sum of £13,000. He was making no attack upon the Secretary to the Treasury. The Secretary to the Treasury did his work as honestly and as well as any man who ever filled the post, and he (Mr. O'Connor) would have no objection to make to anything the hon. Gentleman had said or done. His point was this—that the Board of Works, who were the agents of the Treasury for Irish purposes, did not deal with the Treasury in London as the Treasury ought to be dealt with. They did not communicate to the Treasury all those items connected with the public expenditnre which they ought to have communicated, and if there was any point upon which the Financial Secretary was to blame it was not in insisting in having that information. The hon. Gentleman was a Member
    1514
    of the Public Accounts Committee, and he must have known that those and other irregularities had not been made known to the Treasury until a month after the money was granted, showing the perfunctory carelessness with which money was granted, and proving that there was anything but a rigid and careful examination. The hon. Gentleman said that that item had nothing to do with the whole Vote. He (Mr. O'Connor) demurred from that view altogether, because if they had a surplus on one particular item in a Vote and a deficit on another, the Treasury ought to be able to balance the deficit by the surplus without going to the House. The Financial Secretary had informed the House that with regard to all the rest of the Vote the money voted by Parliament was more than sufficient for the purposes of the Board of Works in connection with other works, and that this Supplementary Estimate would otherwise have been required to deal with a larger deficit which had been prevented by applying balances obtained from other items in the Vote. Now, he could not understand how economy could be practised in a Vote by applying surpluses obtained from particular items for which more was asked than was absolutely necessary, and then discovering that upon one item there was a large deficit. This Vote covered buildings for the Hibernian schools, Coastguard stations, Metropolitan buildings, lunatic asylums, Science and Art buildings, Revenue buildings, and other institutions, as well as the unfortunate Ulster Canal. He was afraid that the examination of the details of the original Estimate was anything but satisfactory. The National Education Commissioners contended that they were within the terms of the Act of Parliament; that they had to furnish Estimates for the Board of Works, who ought to have full information as to what purposes the money was required for. It was admitted that the Board of Works knew, as far back as November and December last, that there was a deficit on this particular Service; but the Committee now learned from the Financial Secretary that it was not until he went over to Dublin, and investigated the matter on the spot, that he ascertained that not only had all the money which had been voted been ex-

    1515
    hausted before two-thirds of the financial year had lapsed, but that there was a further liability to the extent of £60,000 of which the Treasury knew nothing at all, and of which he himself would have been ignorant if he had not gone over and investigated for himself. That, to his (Mr. Arthur O'Connor's) mind, showed very lax administration of the public money. The Board of Works last year spent a great deal of money they were not authorized to spend by Parliament, or checked by the Treasury, except in regard to the reception of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in Dublin. In the previous year the same thing occurred, and money was expended by the Board of Works without the authority of the Treasury or the sanction of Parliament. The Treasury had come to no decision in the matter at the time the Public Accounts Committee was appointed. The letter of the Treasury communicating the decision to which they had arrived last year, and the decision of the Public Accounts Committee, was not communicated to the different Departments until the month of January this year, or more than a month late. As a rule the Treasury letter was communicated in the month of December; but this year it was not sent out until January. The whole of this business showed looseness on the part of the Board of Works and of the Treasury which almost amounted to carelessness. He entirely believed that the Financial Secretary was innocent in the matter; but the whole attitude of the Treasury in regard to the Board of Works in Ireland was one which required to be revived. These irregularities should not be allowed for one moment. The Board of Works should not be allowed to spend money they were not authorized to spend, nor should they render themselves liable for the expenditure of thousands of pounds of the public money without communicating full information to the Treasury.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, that this Vote for the building of schools was very much on the plan adopted in connection with the Science and Art Department. The grants were given in proportion to the amounts raised in the localities, but only on the understanding that the total annual vote for this service was not exceeded, and late applicants must be put off for a subsequent year.
    1516
    So far as the Science and Art Department was concerned, he did not think that any question had ever been raised as to the way in which it carried on its duties in this respect, simply because it was understood that no money could be expended without the approval of Parliament and that in no case should a given vote be exceeded. If money was to be spent without the sanction of Parliament simply by a locality claiming it, the control of Parliament over the expenditure was lost.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was perfectly satisfied with the explanation of the Financial Secretary: but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had opened up the ground of policy in regard to the way is which the education of the Irish people was administered. There had been a great desire expressed to extend education in Ireland, and upon a system which had been settled for a long time, in order to avoid quarrels between different religious denominations. In order to carry that out and leave the Government free, the system had been automatic, so that any school could be established in any place, if it were not too near another school. It was the duty of the Commissioners of Education and the Board of Works to see that the locality had a sufficicient population. As the people of Ireland paid £7,500,000 towards the Imperial taxation, he thought they had some right to receive some little good out of the expenditure. He knew the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to economize; and he would point out a way in which that object could be accomplished. At present the system only permitted the erection of a school where a piece of land could be obtained. It was not the practice to build a school in the best place, but only where a bit of land could be got. The result was that where four schools might be sufficient, they had to build 10, because they were not erected in the best places. A Bill to remedy this defect had frequently been brought in by the Irish Party. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to effect a considerable economy if he would insist on the schools being built in the best places. Moreover, fewer teachers would be required, and a great deal more than this £13,000 would be saved. Instead of grumbling

    1517
    about the expenditure of this £13,000, he believed that the money had been very well spent indeed.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I will certainly take a note of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion. The point, however, is to check the expenditure of the National Education Commissioners. Parliament will, I hope, insist that the Treasury shall have more authority over the amount expended in a particular year than they have hitherto had. Looking at the enormous way in which these schools are being built, I think that Parliament should insist that there should be a limit upon the expenditure on these schools in a particular year. The House of Commons ought to expect the Government to determine how much money shall be expended in a particular year, and keep to that amount rigidly.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that when the hon. and gallant Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) maintained the right and privilege of Irish Boards to spend money without the sanction of Parliament, he thought the British taxpayer might fairly tremble. At the same time, the Government had admitted that in regard to this particular Vote there were anomalies which ought to be remedied. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not gone a little further, and told the Committee that next year there should not be a Vote of this kind, but that the Irish Board should be given to understand that they must get their coat cut according to their cloth, and not spend more than the money voted by Parliament, whatever that amount might be. He sincerely hoped that there would be no discussions of this nature in the ensuing Session.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I can assure the hon. Member that no one would regret the recurrence of such a discussion more than I should.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £12,000, Supplementary, Science and Art Buildings (Dublin).
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I have one or two words to say upon this matter. I think the Vote stands still more in need of explanation than the last, and that there are matters connected with it that ought not to be passed over in silence. What
    1518
    I object to is a Supplementary Vote for works which Parliament did not consider and vote money for last year. The Vote last year for the erection of these buildings was £30,000, and the Government and the Treasury have allowed £12,000 more to be spent within the financial year than they took power for. If the Government will turn to the Vote they will find that their Estimate was even more gravely defective than that, because it will be found that the original Estimate was £100,000. That, I suppose, was the Estimate of the Board of Works; but the revised Estimate now placed before the Committee amounts to £145,000. When the Treasury came before Parliament and asked for a Vote to purchase part of a site and erect new Science and Art buildings and a national library, they told Parliament that the cost would be £100,000, and it is now found that the expenditure will be £45,000 more than the original Estimate. I think that that is not only objectionable but discreditable, and it throws the greatest possible suspicion on the value of the Government Estimates. That is a general complaint in regard to all works, and I put it to the Secretary to the Treasury why it should be allowed. I know that the hon. Gentleman will tell me that to have arrested the progress of the building would, of course, entail great confusion and a loss of money. But if the Treasury had said that they had no more money to devote to this purpose this year, the public would have known that it was the bad management of the Board of Works that had caused all the loss and confusion. If a great stand of that kind were once made, I do not think that it would occur again, but as long as the Government allow the Board of Works to spend more money than they originally estimated, and consented to pay the excess, so long as this loose and unbusinesslike way of conducting business goes on, there will be loss and confusion. I think that the Secretary to the Treasury owes an explanation to the Committee of this Vote even more than upon the last one.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that in addition to the point raised by the noble Lord, he desired to call attention to the fact that these Estimates were being constantly revised. He found that the original Estimate sub-

    1519
    mitted to the House was £100,000. Then came the revised estimate of £138,571, and during the financial year that Estimate of £138,571 had been again revised and brought up to the £145,191 to which the noble Lord had drawn attention. Therefore, the Estimates laid before Parliament turned out to be utterly worthless, and he wished to have some explanation of why the Estimates should grow every year in this manner.
    COLONEL NOLANasked, how much of the money was to be spent for the site?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I am afraid that I have not got the amount for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked. The noble Lord has brought two Questions before the Committee—one is as to the amount of the Estimate originally presented to Parliament, and its subsequent enlargement or revision; and, secondly, as to the unwisdom of allowing the expenditure to exceed the amount voted by Parliament, and not stopping it in the way suggested. I may say that I am not responsible for that original Estimate presented to Parliament. But I would venture to ask any Member of the Committee, who has had any experience of building operations, to consider for one moment how difficult it must be for anybody before an actual contract could be obtained, to estimate accurately what the cost of a building would be. I am afraid that that is actually impossible, and I am sure that the noble Lord knows perfectly well, from his own experience, that estimates for building operations are seldom sufficient to carry out works of this character. I may point out that the Estimates have been revised from time to time, possibly in consequence of alterations in the plan. It may be said that the plans ought to be made complete in the first instance; but we know that from time to time alterations are found to be necessary. With regard to the amount which has been expended in excess of the Estimate, I am sorry to repeat what I said in the previous case. I merely stated what the explanation was, and it is apparently an explanation well founded. When I was in Dublin, both in conversation with the contractor and with those who are responsible for superintending the
    1520
    building, I learned that the contractors in this case have acted most energetically. There has never been a single day on which the works have been stopped, and I cannot admit that it would have been good policy to have turned these men away from that building, simply because the money voted by Parliament had been spent, and to have kept them idle for months. I cannot think that Parliament would have justified the Treasury if we had taken that course. It is most difficult, and in some cases impossible, to calculate how much progress will be made in a large building of this character during the year. I am extremely sorry to have to come now and ask for a Supplementary Estimate. I can only plead that although the money is raised this year, instead of next, it does not add one single sixpence to the cost of the building to which Parliament is committed, and the circumstance is entirely due to the fact that the building has made much greater progress than was contemplated when the Estimate was framed last year. I, therefore, do not believe that the Board of Works are deserving of censure, because they framed their Estimate as far as the information they had to guide them enabled them to calculate the amount that would come in course of payment during the year. The original Estimate for the service was £100,000. I cannot say when that original Estimate was formed, and I am afraid that I have not the particulars as to why that sum had been so largely exceeded.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Does the hon. Gentleman mean the Committee to understand that he thinks the increase in the Estimate from £100,000 to £145,000 is such a reasonable increase as would happen in the ordinary affairs of life?
    MR. JACKSON: Speaking from my own experience I should say "Yes." I should say "It is not at all an exceptional case;" and I must say that Parliament must have sanctioned the increase on a former occasion; therefore the Treasury is not responsible. It is not surprising that the Estimate has been enlarged, partly by reason of the improvements which have been sanctioned in the construction itself. Even during the last year I must plead guilty to having sanctioned a further addition of £1,800, because it was very strongly

    1521
    represented to the Treasury that unless the Rotunda was raised a little higher than was intended in the original plan, the general appearance of what everybody admits to be a magnificent building would be spoiled.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought that the Treasury ought to exercise the utmost care in dealing with public Departments. They seldom heard of a case where the expenditure fell below the Estimate. The practice of exceeding the Estimates for building was not only common, but habitual, and for that reason he thought that the Treasury ought to exercise the utmost care and even rigour in dealing with the public Departments, so that they should not allow the expenditure to be so largely exceeded. £184,155 had already been sanctioned by Parliament in connection with these Science and Art buildings in Dublin, and that sum was likely to be still further exceeded by the £ 1,800 to which the Secretary to the Treasury had alluded. At any rate he should be glad to learn whether the £1,800 was in excess of the £184,000.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, that this was only a typical case of the enormous increase over the Estimates in regard to buildings erected in connection with the Science and Art Department. There were buildings at South Kensington Museum, in Edinburgh, in Jermyn Street, and elsewhere, and in all cases it had been found that the Estimate was so absurdly below the real cost as to require very strict notice. He thought that an increase of about 50 per cent over the original Estimate was very excessive. He had had a good deal to do with building, and he could not help thinking that this was an excessive amount of increase. The item of £1,800 was the keynote of the whole difficulty, because, although only a very small sum, it showed that the plans were not properly and carefully considered originally. They were prepared economically in the first instance, with the idea that it would in that case be more easy to get the Treasury to allow an increased expenditure afterwards. He was satisfied that the only way of effecting economy in the cost of building operations was by going carefully into the plans at first, and by its being understood that the House of Commons would
    1522
    not consent to increase the amount afterwards. He thought it would be a wholesome thing for the Committee to throw out the increase on the present occasion.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it would appear from the Vote that £184,155 had already been sanctioned. Was this a new Estimate or part of the Estimate that had already been passed?
    MR. JACKSON: This sum which has already been sanctioned will, I hope, complete the works. In regard to the sum of £1,800 which the hon. Member referred to as having been sanctioned in the past year, I am afraid it may happen that that sum will prove to be an excess over the Estimate. It would, however, be an unwise thing to spoil a building like this for the sake of £ 1,800. Everybody must admit that the alteration proposed to be effected in the Rotunda will be a very great improvement.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Does this item include this sum of £1,800?
    MR. JACKSON: Yes, certainly.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, they were told that the favourable weather in the past year had enabled greater progress to be made with the building than had been expected; but now they were told that the Estimate included a portion of the Rotunda which had not been sanctioned by Parliament.
    MR. BARTLEYasked, whether the architect received a larger fee for the increased amount?
    MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member rather mistakes the matter. It was arranged, in the original plan, to go a certain height; and the question has since arisen whether it was not desirable to put four or five feet more on the top of it in order to give it a better appearance. It was originally arranged that the boilers and heating apparatus should be placed in the basement of the main building; but, later on, when it was seen that there was a possibility, at some time or other, of the electric light being adopted—for which, additional machinery would be required—the question came up for consideration whether it would be desirable or safe to put in the basement of the main building all the appliances for heating and lighting—engines, boilers, and so on. It was suggested that there was a piece of ground outside the building which

    1523
    might be used for an annexe, if that were ultimately determined upon, and that the boilers and heating apparatus might be put outside of and separate from the main building. It seemed to him that that would be a valuable improvement, alike as regarded safety, convenience, and economical working; and that it would be better to adopt that plan than to carry out the original suggestion.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman showed very clearly how these things grew; how, when a plain building was estimated for, all sorts of additions and improvements were asked for. In the first place, the House was led to sanction an outlay of £100,000, and then was led on to sanction one of £200,000 or £300,000. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), he was sorry to say, did not seem to condemn the system under which they were asked to sanction, bit by bit, an enlargement of an original Estimate.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)assured the hon. Gentleman that neither the Board of Works in Ireland nor any other body in the United Kingdom found the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury too yielding or easy in regard to these matters. This was one case in which his hon. Friend had given way; but for this one case which appeared before the House of Commons, there were 50 cases in which he had not given way, and in which he received considerable abuse for the hardness of his heart. He hoped the hon. Member would not judge the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury by this case. A great building was concerned, and his hon. Friend had made a slight concession; but he was stoney-hearted generally, unless a strong case was made out.
    MR. H. S. WRIGHTsaid, they all knew from experience that however large an Estimate was, it was certain to be exceeded in the long run. It was, therefore, far better to allow a certain latitude than to draw hard and fast lines which they found it impossible to observe. If this Vote was refused, the result would be that the Local Authorities would be compelled to make their Estimates in future considerably larger than at the time might
    1524
    seem necessary, in order to provide for unforeseen contingencies.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) £1,100, Supplementary, Lighthouses Abroad.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, the explanation of this Vote was very simple. There was a tender called the Richmond, which carried stores to the lighthouses off the coast of Rocky Island. A hurricane came on when this tender was making for the shore. The tender was blown on the rocks, and injured. This expenditure consisted partly of repairs, partly of the hire of a schooner to do the work during the time the Richmond was laid up, and partly of the cost of assistance in getting the vessel off the rocks. The occurrence was an accident, and no blame attached to anyone.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (4.) £1, Supplementary, Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he believed that £1 was the smallest sum which it was competent for Parliament to Vote, and he had purposely made the charge £1 so that the Committee might see at once that the voting of the money was a mere matter of form. The Committee would understand that although the fees were sufficient to cover the whole cost of the service, there had been in the original Estimate a Vote for £68,920 for salaries. There had been an increase of fees, and, in some cases, an increase of salaries to the extent of £7,044; but, unless a Vote of the House was taken, those salaries could not be dealt with in the Appropriation Account, because they would never have received the sanction of Parliament. The Treasury had power to issue from time to time to the Board of Trade in aid of Votes of Parliament, out of the receipts arising from fees, stamps, and dividends, any sums which, might be necessary to meet the charge estimated by the Board of Trade in respect of salaries and expenditure. They had done this, but there would not be Parliamentary sanction of the salaries

    1525
    unless they took a Vote in this form. That was why the Vote was taken.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he supposed they might take it that the receipts from the working of the Bankruptcy Act wore in excess of the expenditure.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, the salary of the official receiver at Liverpool was £1,000; whereas, the official receiver at Manchester was paid a salary of £1,200 and had an assistant receiver who was paid £600. The business of Liverpool was considerably in excess of that at Manchester, and, therefore, it was thought that the salary of the Liverpool receiver should be placed on an equal footing with that of the Manchester receiver. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) whether there was anything included in the Vote for the purpose.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, there was nothing included in the Vote for the particular matter to which his hon. Friend referred. An application on the subject of this gentleman's salary had been sent to the Board of Trade, and, of course, it would be fully considered.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) that this was a formal matter must be taken with some qualification. A great deal more than £1 was involved in the Vote. When the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 passed through the House, an alteration was made in the Estimates. It was then agreed that a statement should be annually laid before Parliament, showing the amount of fees realized under the Bankruptcy Act, and the amount expended in the administration of the Act. Apparently there was no charge on the Public Treasury in connection with the Service, but the appearances were misleading. As a matter of fact there was just as large a charge against the Public Treasury in connection with this Vote as in connection with any other Vote in the Estimates, because if this money was not spent in extra salaries and in large travelling allowances it would go into the Exchequer. The officials under the Bankruptcy administration were at pre-
    1526
    sent battening upon the fees obtained in bankruptcy proceedings. Of course, as the charge did not come apparently as a direct charge on the Treasury, the House was not very much inclined to look with scrutiny into the matter; but he contended that it was the duty of the Treasury to keep down this Vote as much as possible. This involved an extra charge of £7,000, and was justified on the ground that the fees were enough to meet the outgoings. They were, unfortunately, more than enough, and that involved an injustice to the suitors and to the estates under the Bankruptcy administration. Seeing how much money was realized by these fees, it would be very much fairer, and more in accordance with the spirit which was manifested and expressed at the time the Act of 1883 was passed, if Bankruptcy fees were very considerably lowered, at any rate, in a great number of cases. He would like to know whether the Treasury had conferred with the Board of Trade as to the possibility of lowering some, at least, of the charges under Bankruptcy administration.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, the Treasury and the Board of Trade were constantly in communication with regard to this expenditure. Perhaps he ought to explain that, although the total sum was £7,044, it really was not an increase of £7,044, because there were the Subheads E and F, which, he believed, came under the Vote for the first time this year. Hitherto they had been paid out of the fees of the estate, and an arrangement had been made, which was thought to be more economical, whereby they should come on the Votes. He would bear in mind what the hon. Member had said regarding the fees. He believed that since 1883 the fees had amounted to £485,000, while the expenditure had been £460,000. There was, therefore, a balance of £25,000. The fees more than covered the cost, but the margin was rather small.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he wished to point out that under the heading "Law Charges" there was a sum of £784 required in addition to the original Estimate, and, on turning over the page, he found that this was due to exceedingly heavy litigation. He desired to know whether this sum was made up in part of costs

    1527
    in connection with the prosecutions of supposed fraudulent bankrupts?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he believed it was not so made up; on the contrary, it arose from an increase of litigation which was consequent upon the administration of estates by officials of the Bankruptcy Department and questions arising out of it upon which the decisions of the Court and of the House of Lords had had to be taken.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, that some cases of criminal prosecution directed by the Board of Trade appeared to him to be most improper and even oppressive—cases in which juries could not reasonably be expected to convict. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he should look into the matter, and put a check, if necessary, upon the eagerness of over-zealous officials.
    Vote agreed to.
    (5.) £481, Supplementary, Colonial Office.
    (6.) £2,277, Supplementary, Charity Commission.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, that the reason why a Supplementary Estimate was to be taken at all was that the Endowed Schools Commission's year ended on the 31st of December, and the Act under which the Commission was appointed was included each year in the Expiring Laws Bill. The ordinary financial year ended on the 31st of March, and, therefore, three months had to be provided for in a Supplementary Estimate. It had been suggested, and he thought it was desirable, that both years should end on the 31st of March.
    MR. J. E. ELLISagreed that it would be desirable to make the change suggested by the Secretary to the Treasury and thus avoid the need of any Supplementary Estimate in this matter. He was sorry the hon. Member who was connected with the Charity Commission, and who was the ordinary means of communication between the Commission and the House, was unable to be in his place in consequence of an accident, but, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke) would be able to answer the question he (Mr. J. E. Ellis) wished to put.
    1528
    It would be remembered that the Endowed Schools Commission which sat in 1886 and 1887 were of opinion that the introduction of the representative principle in the Governing Bodies of the schools was a matter of great importance. In Section 12 of their Report they declared it to be essential that the sympathies of the localities should be enlisted by giving the people a large share in the management of the schools by representation, either direct or indirect, through elected bodies. The point he wished to call attention to was this—whether the Endowed School Commission was now really carrying into effect that recommendation. If the Committee would turn to the Report of the Endowed Schools Commission, it would be seen that there was an Amendment moved to the effect that the words "a large share" should be left out, to substitute a share in the management by "a majority" of representatives, and that this was only lost by the casting vote of the Chairman. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would agree that there was a strong expression of opinion on the part of the Committee that the representative principle should find a larger place on these bodies. The matter was not a Party one at all. It cut both ways, and he had no doubt that under the principle of election hon. Gentlemen on the opposite—the Conservative—side of the House, would find places on the governing bodies of the schools just as they did now. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would be able to give the Committee an assurance that the Endowed Schools Commissioners were carrying out the representative principle in the schemes they were framing.
    MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that as a Member of the Endowed Schools Commission he could say that it was the opinion of that Committee, after taking a considerable amount of evidence, that the Endowed Schools Commissioners in framing their schemes did have regard to the principle of representation. The Commissioners themselves gave evidence in support of the principle of representation. How soon it might be desirable to extend the principle was another question, but he did not think the granting or refusing of the money now asked for could be determined by

    1529
    the opinion of the Committee on that point. No doubt it was desirable that the Governing Bodies of these endowed schools should be in full sympathy with the sentiment of the localities and should have the confidence of the public. It was the policy of the Charity Commissioners, he believed, to act in accordance with that view, and they had accepted the decision of the Select Committee as being in accordance with their own well established system. That, however, was not the only element to be considered in the constitution of those bodies, as there were others which should be kept clearly in view. The question of how far the principle of representation should be extended would not be affected by this Vote.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, he apologized for taking part in the debate, and only rose because the hon. Member who usually answered for the Endowed Schools Commissioners, was not able to be in his place. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) had conceded the point urged by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J.E. Ellis); that was to say, that the representative principle should have effect in these schemes so far as the localities were concerned. He would point out, however, that they might go too far with the representative element, and he did not think the hon. Member opposite desired that they should do that. A Motion had been brought forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for Lichfield Division of Staffordshire to deal with this question of representation, and he did not suppose that the Committee would go so far as that Motion. Though he (Sir William Hart Dyke) was not a Member of the Endowed Schools Commission, he was constantly in communication with the Commissioners, and he could assure the hon. Member, without any further communication with them, that they were perfectly well aware of the language used in the Report to which reference had been made. It would be found that reference was made to the proceedings of the Select Committee in the Report of the Commissioners themselves, so that that was evidence, at all events, that the Commissioners considered the recommendation of the Committee as worthy
    1530
    of their attention. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that so far as the Charity Commissioners were concerned they had taken note of the matter, and that in every scheme they were framing now, or would frame in future, they would take care that the representative principle should have a place.
    Vote agreed to.
    (7.) £7,100, Supplementary, Mint, including Coinage.
    MR. MONTAGUsaid, he should like to ascertain some particulars with regard to this loss of £7,100 on foreign bronze coin, as it appeared to be equal to 33 per cent on the £22,578 withdrawn from circulation. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) or the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) explain what portion of the loss arose from the sale of coins, and what portion was on account of expenses connected with it. There was a public announcement made, he thought, in July last, to the effect that the French Government intended to withdraw their copper coins. Now, the bulk of the coins which were withdrawn in this country were French, and that would have been a very favourable opportunity for getting rid of the French copper coin in this country without loss beyond the cost of carriage from London to Paris, which would have been about £1 per ton or less than £100 in all. He wished to know whether that intimation was conveyed to the Government and how they could account for the heavy loss?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, that the intimation was conveyed to the Government, and they endeavoured first to ascertain whether the French Government would be willing to accept this coin. It must be borne in mind, however, that this foreign copper coin in circulation was not entirely French. There was some Italian coin and some belonging to other countries. He regretted to say that the negotiations with the French Government were not successful. They did not want the coin, and the arrangement to which the hon. Member referred—namely, the withdrawal of copper coin in France, had not been carried out. The Government further thought it possible that the French

    1531
    Government might say that they had got a large quantity of English copper coin, and might ask Her Majesty's Government to take it in exchange. Her Majesty's Government were perfectly ready to do this, but they had not the opportunity. The decision to call in this copper coin was taken very much with the sanction of every hon. Member of the House at the time. The circulation of this coin was considered to be such a great source of inconvenience and difficulty to a large number of poor people that it was determined to call it in. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he believed, insisted upon the matter being brought to a Vote of the House so as to emphasize what the loss on the transaction had been. The loss might really have been dealt with in the Mint account—the matter might have been handed over to the Mint and dealt with as Mint questions usually are dealt with. They were face to face with two alternatives—one was to melt the coin down as bullion and make it into copper coin, and the other was to sell it to the best bidder. He could not, with his commercial mind, admit the force of the sentimental objection to selling it to the best bidder. They hunted about and tried to find a buyer, and after some negotiation sold it at the best price they could get. He might point out that if they had melted it up the loss would have been £20,000, with the price at which copper was at that time. It seemed to him that it was much more economical to dispose of it as they did, though the arrangement was besot with some little difficulty, and it was only reasonable that they should try and save £15,000 out of the fire. There were certain expenses connected with the collection by the General Post Office—sending the coin to London and Paris, shipping charges and insurance, packing and sorting, and such like matters. In addition to all this there were about six or seven tons of coin which had been defaced and could not be passed. He believed that some of the enterprizing traders in London—he was not quite sure whether it was an eminent firm which deals in soap—were responsible for having stamped the coins with the names of their firms. Those coins could not be passed into currency. This coin having passed into the Mint at the rate
    1532
    of £400 a-ton, and having to be sold as bullion at the rate of about £45 per ton—for that was then the price, although it had gone up considerably since—this in itself resulted in considerable loss. He believed that under the circumstances the best arrangement had been made so far as the financial question was concerned. Hon. Gentlemen knew pretty much the circumstances at the time, and he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would approve of what had been done.
    MR. MONTAGUsaid, he did not think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had answered his question as to what portion of the loss resulted from the sale of the French coin. He did not think there was any question about the policy of not melting the coin up, nor did he believe that there was any regulation to withdraw coin that had been defaced by being stamped with the advertisement of the soap merchant referred to; but he should like to know whether the Government had invited competition for the purchase of the good French coin. He had pointed out to the Secretary to the Treasury how a small portion of the coin could be sold at 4 per cent loss, and he failed to understand what the large increase in the loss incurred, as set forth in the Supplementary Estimate, was owing to. What he wished to ask was simply what proportion of the loss arose through the sale of French coin?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he was afraid he could not state accurately what the proportion of the loss was; but he believed, taking it all round, that the coin was sold at a discount of 17½ per cent. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu) would remember that he (Mr. Jackson) had consulted him as one from whom he had thought he would be likely to get valuable information. He had hoped that they would have got a better bargain than that they ultimately had to make. It was a question of getting rid of the French coin at once or spreading its sale over a long period of time. They had sent through the markets and had made the best inquiries they could. They had succeeded in getting some competition for the money. Ha could not say he was proud of the bargain which had been made, as he had hoped to make a better sale; still he believed that, considering all the

    1533
    circumstances, the best had been done.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not object to the course the Government had taken. The question had been a difficult one, and he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had acted for the best. What he could not understand was why, if this French coin was made of the same metal as that which was used in the manufacture of our own pence, it was not sent into the Mint, re-minted, and re-issued as English pence?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, that if that had been done the loss would have been £20,000. They might have manufactured the bronze into pence, but how would they have put the pence into circulation? They had put now as many pence into circulation as they could through the ordinary transactions of trade. Besides, if they had used the French money for the manufacture of English pence, they would have been buying the bronze bullion at a price infinitely above the market price at the time. It appeared to him that the wisest course had been taken in sending the money back to France. If they had themselves attempted to put the money into circulation in France they might have done so at the rate of about £100 a month, or in some similar way, but when they had £25,000 worth of centimes it was obvious that it would have taken years to dispose of the coin in this retail manner. Under the circumstances, he thought his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had taken the best course he could in getting offers from several French firms for the purchase of the coin. It would have been a very dangerous course, and one prejudicial to the public interest, to have smelted down the coin.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's answer was perfectly satisfactory. He had been under the impression that copper coin was still being issued; but if this was not the case, the plan adopted was clearly the best.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he hoped that great care had been taken to prevent these French coins getting into circulation again amongst the poor.
    1534
    Was it understood that the coins had been sold out of the country?
    MR. GOSCHEN: It was delivered in France.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (8.) £38,073, Supplementary, County Courts.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought the Committee should have some explanation of the large increase in the Vote over the original Estimate. He had thought that the amount for the County Courts was a fixed Estimate, and they ought to be told whether the number of Judges had increased, whether the salaries had increased, or what the increase of £38,073 was owing to.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he was sorry he had not risen at once to give an explanation of the Vote, but he had thought the Committee was aware that this was one of the Votes which very often resulted in a Supplementary Estimate. The expenses were paid according to the amount of business. For instance, the Registrars were paid £4 for each 25 cases, and he did not think it was very easy to judge beforehand how many cases would be brought into the County Court during the next 12 months. An Estimate was usually taken as near as any approximate estimate could be made to cover the number of cases, but the real fact in the past financial year had been—and, no doubt, hon. Members would notice it—that the growth of expenditure was not only considerable in itself, but was disproportionate to the growth of receipts from fees. The explanation of that, he understood, was that the Registrars were paid so much per case, and the fees depended on the amounts which were involved in the cases. He understood that there had been a considerable increase in the total business, whether or not due to bad trade he could not say. There had been not only a considerable increase in the total business, but there had been at the same time a considerable increase in the cases involving very small amounts, and that accounted for the amount of fees not having grown proportionately with the amount of expenses, because the expenses were paid

    1535
    at so much per case, while the fees were collected according to the amounts involved in the cases. The Committee would see that it was not possible for the Government to correctly foretell the number of cases that would be brought on. He admitted that £38,000 was a considerable increase on an Estimate something short of £400,000, but he hoped the Committee would recognize that an expenditure of £400,000 on such a business represented in itself an enormous amount of work, and that it must necessarily be very difficult to estimate with anything like accuracy the amount that would be required. He hoped also, if he might say so at this stage, that the Committee would not be too severe and that the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) would not be too severe on the Treasury for not asking for large sums of money merely for the purpose of avoiding Supplementary Estimates. There was no check on expenditure which the House and the Treasury could exercise so effectually as being able to say "The amount of money voted is exceeded, and therefore we cannot give you any more."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: We do not say it.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, his noble Friend remarked that the House did not say that; but he would be more correct if he said "On some occasions we do not say it." The Treasury did not ask for large sums when there was necessarily uncertainty as to the amount which would be required.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he wished to ask, whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury could tell the Committee how much of this money was for additional payment to Registrars? At the rate of £4 for 25 cases, the Supplementary amount asked for would represent 208,000 extra plaints, which would be an enormous number.
    MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether the effect of paying Registrars by the case was not that some of them received salaries higher than the County Court Judges themselves?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he was afraid he had not very much knowledge on that subject; but he certainly did happen to know of one case where the fees of the
    1536
    Registrar became so large that it was thought desirable to cut them down by appointing someone else to help him to take them. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill), he (Mr. Jackson) was afraid he could not supply the details asked for.
    MR. BRADLAUGHasked, if the hon. Gentleman would inquire whether it was true that many Registrars were now receiving by the scale of payments by case a higher sum of money than was paid to some County Court Judges; and whether, if that turned out to be the fact—as he believed it was—the Government would take some immediate steps, by legislation, to remedy that most outrageous state of things?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he would promise to inquire as to the facts; but he was afraid it was another question whether legislation would be brought forward. He must leave that to someone else to answer.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, there could be no hesitation in giving an answer on such a subject. If it were shown that a subordinate received a higher pay than the Chief of his Court, the Government ought to feel bound to remedy the state of things at once.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he thought that there had been some gross miscalculation in reference to this Vote, and the Committee was bound to do what it could to see that such miscalculations did not occur in future; otherwise they might be asked next year to pay another £38,000.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, the Committee was called upon to pay a large sum in connection with bankruptcy remuneration. When the Bankruptcy Act was passed three years ago, they were told that its effect would be to cheapen the conduct of bankruptcy cases, and that the whole cost would fall on the people who used the Court, and not on the nation. Why were they called upon to pay nearly £30,000 for remuneration in bankruptcy cases when the whole of the expense ought to come out of the pockets of those who used the Courts.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he was afraid he had not the particulars as to bankruptcy remuneration, He would, how-

    1537
    ever, make inquiries and find out what it had been.
    MR. NORRISsaid, he wished to call attention to the original Estimate of £17,910 for printing and stationery under the County Court Department. The addition to the Vote now asked for was £818. He desired to know if there was any check upon this expenditure; also on the postages, for which an additional sum of £796 was now asked, the original Estimate having been £10,294? If the "postages" represented penny stamps, 2,400,000 letters must have been sent out, and if it represented halfpenny stamps the letters must have numbered 4,800,000. It appeared to him that the items for postages and stationery were very large, and he should like to have information with regard to them.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he was afraid he could not give the hon. Member any detailed information on these sub-heads "C" and "E." All he could say was that when the Estimates were submitted to the Treasury every item was criticized with the greatest care, all sorts of questions were asked of those responsible, and every effort was made to cut down the expenditure. These sub-heads had been most carefully gone through by the officers of the Treasury, and he believed they had received much more searching investigation than in former years.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid he thought it would be desirable to have the Vote delayed for another night, in order to have an explanation of some of these matters as to which no explanation was now forthcoming.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it was notorious in many parts of the country that, under the dangerous practice of payment by fees, subordinate officers often came to receive most exorbitant salaries. He did think they should have a very distinct pledge that, attention should be paid to this matter. As the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury did not appear to be fully informed upon the matter, he thought it would be better that the Vote should be postponed.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he did not wish to prolong the discussion now, but would give notice to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that when this particular Vote in the new Esti-
    1538
    mates came on, unless the Government were prepared to give a distinct pledge to alter the system of paying the Registrars by fees, the result of which was in some cases to pay them higher salaries than were received by the Chiefs of their own Courts, he would oppose the Vote.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, they should not only draw the attention of the Committee to this matter, but the attention of the public should be directed to it—to the fact that the Committee was asked to vote the very considerable sum of £38,073 as a Supplementary Estimate, of which no explanation had been given by the Secretary to the Treasury, and no explanation was forthcoming by the Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman could not be expected to give them all the details of the procedure of County Courts. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) could not, however, refrain from expressing his surprise that the Law Officers of the Crown had not been in the House to defend the very large expenditure asked for under the Vote, because the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had been quite unable to give them an explanation of the large increase in the item of salaries of £34,778, except that it was connected with Registrars. That large increase was an increase in fixed salaries, and showed a very un businesslike proceeding on the part of those responsible for the Estimates. The Government, he thought, should give a promise that this matter of the payment of these Registrars should be considered, and should be thoroughly explained on Report, or should postpone the Vote until the Law Officers were in attendance to give some account of the expenditure to the Committee.
    MR. JACKSONsaid the noble Lord appeared to think that the Treasury had under estimated the fixed salaries of the Registrars, but that was not the case. He (Mr. Jackson) understood that the salaries of the Registrars were limited only in the sense that these gentlemen never received more than £1,400 a-year. The salary was not fixed, therefore it was impossible to say what the amount which would be paid in salaries would be unless they could say what the amount of business would be which would be brought before the Registrars. With regard to

    1539
    the question affecting bankruptcy remuneration, which really meant the sums paid to Registrars in bankruptcy under Sub-head "D," he had to point out that these Registrars were paid according to a certain scale—according to the amount dealt with. On sums exceeding £5 and under £10 they were paid 2s. 6d., and so on, over a considerable scale. The Registrars were entitled to a sum for every bankruptcy petition filed in their respective Courts—£4 for every petition filed in the year above £100 mid not exceeding £200. The amount of remuneration was regulated by a scale which had been most carefully considered, and the increase or decrease in these salaries fluctuated, as he had endeavoured to show, by reason of the increase or decrease which might occur in the amount of business done in the course of the year. The increase was not an increase of salary, but an increased payment for increased business, and it was very difficult to estimate correctly beforehand whether there would be an increase or decrease, because it was impossible to know what business there would be. The scale had been very carefully gone into, and, therefore, he hoped the House would not ask that the Vote be postponed. If it were postponed he did not see that any information he might be able to obtain could make any difference in the Vote, the increase on which arose from circumstances which were not under the control of the Treasury.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked if the £34,778 were entirely connected with the salaries of the Registrars?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, that was not so.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he hoped the Committee would consider the whole question of printing, stationery, and postage, because there could be no economy as long as each Department went on drawing its supplies from another Department, so that each had no interest in keeping expenses down. He was afraid they would never have economy in this matter until each Department drew its own expenses for stationery, &c, and was made accountable for them. It seemed impossible that all this money could be accounted for under the head of printing and stationery, and he felt certain that if the matter were
    1540
    looked into it would be found that the amount could be enormously reduced.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he quite admitted that the Committee ought to be in possession of full details on every subject stated in the Votes, and he would take care that further information was supplied on Report.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he did not quite know what the position would be on the Report stage under the New Rules. If the Report were taken after 12 o'clock, he did not feel sure that the discussion would be of a sufficient character. He thought it would be a great advantage if the hon. and learned Attorney General would state what he knew of this matter.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that this particular matter relating to the Registrars had been the subject of some remarks last Session. Had he been aware that there would be any discussion upon the item that evening, he would have been in a position to give more information upon the subject. His impression was, however, and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington was no doubt aware, that the Registrars were not allowed under the present system to make more than a certain amount from all sources. He regretted that he had not the details at hand, but he could not imagine that any extra payment was included here beyond that which was now fixed by the County Court Rules.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, that having held the office of Registrar he was in a position to state that the salaries were limited some four or five years ago, at least in the case of the larger registries. With respect to postages, and other minor items, he could only boar his testimony to the extreme vigilance exercised over this expenditure by the Treasury. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) appeared to be under a misapprehension which destroyed the whole effect of his calculation. He understood him to say that the number of Registrars was 50 or 60. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said I was so informed.] As a matter of fact, the number was very largely in excess of that. He believed that each County Court Judge had a constellation of Registrars surrounding him, and that the

    1541
    whole number was probably between 600 and 700.
    SIR RICHARD PAGETsaid, he believed the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would not be surprised that this Vote had been made the subject of discussion. When they considered that there was extreme difficulty in obtaining from the Treasury aid for objects which stood greatly in need of it, it was only natural that they should expect details to be given when the House was asked for so large an amount as the present under a Supplementary Estimate. He asked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if he had any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing how this amount asked for the Registrars was to be disposed of? There appeared to be some uncertainty as to the number of the Registrars, and he would like a Return to be laid upon the Table of the House showing the number of Registrars who had received an additional sum. The principle of payment by fees was one which had been gradually abolished. He (Sir Richard Paget) himself considered it exceptional, and he wished to know whether the same unusual system of payment would be continued in the future?
    MR. KIMBERsaid, he should like to know whether the percentage of increased expenditure to increased receipts was larger or smaller than the percentage of original expenditure bore to the original estimate of receipts? In all businesses it was expected that the expenditure would bear a certain proportion to the receipts. If this were stated, the House would then have a guide as to whether the expenditure was excessive or otherwise.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he should be happy to give the information which the hon. Gentleman asked for. He was not aware whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time of making his (Mr. Jackson's) first explanation; but he had pointed out that the growth of receipts was disproportionate to the current expenditure, and he had also stated that the explanation was that the fees were paid at so much for 25 cases. The receipts were based upon the value of the cases, and therefore they could not make a complete comparison between the cost and the receipts at the time of framing the Estimates, because they
    1542
    would then not be comparing like with like, and the result would be to a certain extent fallacious. There were in all, he believed, 500 Registrars, the salaries of 188 of whom were regulated by the 19th Vict., and 312 whose salaries were regulated by the 29th Vict., and there were 250 High Bailiffs whose salaries wore regulated by the 19th Vict. The Committee would perceive that the number of these officers was very considerable, and that the increase of salaries was due to the cause he had stated. He would give full details of the various salaries on Report.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was generally so well-informed and so courteous on the subject of the Estimates that they ought not to press him too closely for his present un-preparedness. Nevertheless, he agreed that the Committee should be furnished with further information on the subject of this Vote. He thought the hon. Gentleman should give an explanation of the fact that this particular Vote in the Estimates of 1887–8 had been reduced from the Vote of the previous year by £20,000, and that now in a Supplementary Estimate he was replacing that sum. That meant that the Treasury had a year ago made a great miscalculation. They had calculated last year that on the sum for the Registrars there would be a great economy of salary; but this saving had, in point of fact, not occurred. The mistake was made the worse because the receipts were not cut down in proportion, so that the Supplementary Estimate showed a considerable excess in the net charges, as stated last year. The balance of the account was altogether miscalculated, and the Treasury now came to Parliament to have the error rectified.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he admitted that there had been a miscalculation last year. The fact was that when the Estimates were sent to the Treasury the course of business showed a diminished quantity. It was not the Treasury who made the Estimate, but those who were supposed to know all the details of the work, and whose advice the Treasury believed they could take safely on the subject of reducing the sum in consequence of the falling-off of business. He had pointed out that the fees had proved to be less because the

    1543
    number of cases had been of less value. With regard to the increased receipts from fees, which were placed at £22,000, it was not as his hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth (Mr. Kimber) seemed to think. The increased fees did not necessarily result from increasing business; it was a revised Estimate, and the best they could give of the amount to be received during the whole of the year, and their Estimate was that there would be an additional sum of £22,000 received from the fees. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) was perfectly right in saying that there had been a miscalculation as to the amount of business which would come forward, and that, therefore, the decrease in the Estimate was not justified by the facts of the case.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had listened to the discussion on this question attentively, and he had been quite unable to discover from anything which had fallen from the Treasury Bench what the Vote was taken for—whether for Registrars' salaries, Assistant Registrars, or as Registrars proper; no one seemed to know. He asked who it was that prepared this Estimate? He should have thought, whoever prepared it, that the information upon which it was based must now be in the possession of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury or of the Law Officers of the Crown. Although this discussion had been going on for a considerable time, the Committee were in a state of absolute and helpless ignorance as to the items of which the Estimate was composed. He did not think on a matter of such great importance that it would be right to pass this Vote unless they were in possession of information which would clear up the matter. He asked the Government either to postpone the Vote or to furnish the Committee with further details.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, the Estimate was prepared by the Superintendent of County Courts, an officer of very great experience, and who, he believed, was thoroughly reliable. He wished the Committee to understand that the Estimate had not been cut down by the Treasury for the purpose of showing a saving. As he had explained, it was anticipated at the time the Estimate was framed that the amount of business
    1544
    would be less than it had been by £20,000.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, in his opinion, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had given a very substantial reason for the increased charge, but he had given them no information on which they should vote the extra sum. He, therefore, thought the Committee would do well to refuse to vote the money asked for until further information was supplied.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that he regretted not having been prepared with further information, but he had, since the discussion commenced, somewhat refreshed his memory on the subject of the Estimate. The original Estimate was for £335,055, which was insufficient, inasmuch as they now had to ask for £34,778 more. But the amount really required was, practically speaking, only £12,000 more, being the difference between £34,778 and £22,000 expected to be received for increased receipts above the Estimate. He pointed out that the postages and similar charges were comparatively small in amount, so there could be no increase in respect of those items, and he had also formerly shown that the Registrars were paid amounts which depended upon the quantity of business done. The Registrars were partly paid by fees and partly by salary. The High Bailiffs were paid strictly according to statute, and the reason why there had been a miscalculation in round numbers of £12,000 was exactly that stated by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury—namely, that there had been an increase of business. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had reminded the Committee that the information on which this Estimate was based came, in the first instance, from the County Court officials, who were the only persons who could give the necessary information. He (Sir Richard Webster) admitted that the business had increased; there was a larger sum required for salaries; but that was met, to a certain extent, by the £22,000 expected to be received from increased fees. The miscalculation was that it was thought that the original Estimate could be reduced by a larger sum than was found to be the case, and the consequence was that, too small a sum of

    1545
    money having been asked for originally it was now necessary to come to the House with a Supplementary Estimate. He pointed out that all payments were controlled by statute, and the Estimate depended upon the amount of business done. The Committee would, therefore, see that whatever mistake had been made in calculation was the result of estimating the amount which would be recouped. It could not be said that any extra charge had been thrown on the country, nor could it be said that there had been anything more than a too sanguine expectation formed at the time of preparing the Estimates.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, he wished to point out that this Estimate was not alone for Registrars and High Bailiffs, because there was a large staff of clerks to be provided for, in some cases eight or 10, and where the Registrar was paid by salary, these clerks were paid for by Government. He knew in one case that the salaries for clerks had been increased, and that in consequence an additional charge for salaries would be included in the present Vote. The instance was typical, and explained to a large extent the amount now asked for.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought, after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Attorney General and his hon. Friend near him, it was absolutely necessary that the Government should furnish detailed printed statements as to the amount paid to the Registrars, and the manner in which they were paid.
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.) £7,300, Supplementary, Police—Counties and Boroughs, Great Britain.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he might, perhaps, explain that this Supplementary Estimate was mainly due to the additional expenditure entailed by the formation during the year of separate police forces by six boroughs in the county of Lancaster. These boroughs were previously policed by the county, but the authorities now decided to have their own police, which had led to an increase of 170 men. The Estimate was also partly due to an underestimate of the cost of pay and clothing in the other forces. This Estimate represented the amount of contribution
    1546
    which the Government made. The boroughs in question would, in future, find their own police, and not come upon the county as heretofore.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that in this instance it appeared that the Treasury had broken through the usual rule—namely, that there should be no extra expense for police incurred after the 29th of September. They had here, however, an increase of £7,300 in addition to the original Estimate. The authorities in his county had often tried to get an extra grant from the Home Office; but this had been invariably and rightly refused, because of the rule laid down that there should be no increase made after a certain date. He would, therefore, ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary how it happened that these extra police had been allowed to come into this year's account instead of remaining over till next year? He would also like to know how it was that the total original Estimate of £857,000 was now extended to £867,586, because if the latter figures were correct the total increase would be £10,586 instead of £7,300 now asked for?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, there had been no increase properly so-called. As the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had explained, these six boroughs had supplied themselves with police instead of coming upon the county. That change had occurred in July last. He (Mr. Matthews) need not point out that in the case of these boroughs, which had forces of their own, more men, and especially more officers, wore required. The extra allowance in regard to these boroughs only amounted to about £2,000 of the whole sum, that being for pay and clothing due to the change of system, and he could assure the Committee that there was no expenditure except that which was rendered necessary by setting up this force.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the inference which the Committee might very properly draw was that in the coming discussion on Local Government this would furnish an illustration of the effect of Government subsidies. It would be taken for granted that the result of these boroughs

    1547
    having their own police would nearly double the cost, and the change would not be made if the authorities did not see that a considerable portion of the cost would come from the Exchequer.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he should like to ask whether any portion of this sum was applicable to the Metropolitan Police?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, that was not the case.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) £1,963, Supplementary, Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, he should like to have an explanation of the details of this Vote.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, that the first item was incurred in consequence principally of two very important litigations in which the Crown had been engaged, and which it was impossible to avoid. The first of these related to a property in the North of Scotland, and in the course of that litigation inquiries were ordered by the Judge which necessarily involved considerable expense. The result of the inquiry was that the case was decided against the Crown, and upon the advice of the Law Officers it was not carried further. The second case was also one of importance. An action had been raised against the Crown in consequence of a tenant of the Crown having made a cut for the purpose of diverting the course of a stream which would spoil a number of acres of land which afforded good pasture for sheep. The water was again diverted into the old channel by the parties interested below, and an action was raised for the purpose of preventing the Crown from re-opening the new cut and claiming £5,000 damages. There was a great deal of expense incurred in connection with the evidence of engineers and others who had to be called to defend the action. The Court decided in the first instance that the cut was not to be re-opened, but gave no damage against the Crown. Whether there would be an appeal or not he was not then in a position to say. With regard to the salaries of the Sheriff Court, hon. Members would see that a foot-note explained that at the death of the Commissary Clerk the Sheriff Clerk assumed
    1548
    his duties as well as his own. The result would ultimately be a very large saving to the country; but there was, of course, provision to be made for the expense of the work being done at the Sheriff Clerk's office, and that was the provision made in this Vote. With regard to the charge of £100, it had been thought advisable to establish a Sheriff Court in the town of Arbroath, in consequence of the extension of the district and the increase of the town making it suitable that they should have the convenience of a Court at their door. It was absolutely necessary to have an efficient Sheriff Clerk's department there, and for that purpose the sum of £100 had been allowed.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid, he would ask the Lord Advocate what became of the fees payable for Commissary Court business?
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, they were paid into the Exchequer. The accounts would appear in the next Estimate.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid, that the fees taken day by day would more than pay any salary given to the Sheriff Clerk.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, these would be set against the amount now required in the next Estimate.
    Vote agreed to.
    (11.) £400, Supplementary, Police—Counties and Burghs, Scotland.
    (12.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,550, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and of the Revising Barristers."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought the Committee would not be surprised that he should take an early opportunity of adverting again to a matter which he had brought before the House on Thursday last. He wished to point out to the Committee that no answer whatever had been made to the statement which he then put forward. He had made a serious charge against the Government and against the administrators of the law in a particular district in Ireland—namely, Woodford, and had stated, as the result of his experience there, that the Coercion Act

    1549
    was being used as a means of oppression against the tenants and in the interest of the landlords. He had quoted a number of cases in which, in his opinion, injustice had emphatically been done by the Resident Magistrates in that respect. The Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had taken no notice whatever of his statement. That statement was not sprung upon the right hon. Gentleman, because many of the cases to which he referred were contained in a letter he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had written to The Times; some of them had been mentioned in a speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) during the Recess. Under the circumstances, he was surprised that the Government made no reply whatever to his statements. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had contented himself with a tu quoque reply in respect of matters which took place under Lord Spencer's Administration; but he had not attempted to deal with any of his statements with reference to the Resident Magistrates, nor did the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden), who followed the right hon. Gentleman, take any notice of this. The noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) did say that he had listened to his statement with great pleasure, because he considered it a proof that he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had been gulled by the people in that part of Ireland; and he further remarked that he had listened to any nonsense that reached him. The noble Lord, in short, undertook to say that the statements were false. He could assure the Committee that he was not in the habit of bringing forward matters of the kind without inquiries, and he undertook to say that all the statements he had made to the House could be substantiated by proofs. Although the deductions he had drawn from them might be open to criticism, the facts of the case were as he had stated them, and he was now in a position to substantiate what he had said. There was one statement to which the noble Lord especially took exception, and that was the case of a man who had been sent to prison by two Resident Magistrates at Woodford for inciting his widowed mother to resist eviction. He confessed that the statement did at first sight appear incredible; but when he
    1550
    came to make inquiries he found that it was substantially true. In the case of the woman in question the bailiffs declined to show their warrants, and the son thereupon advised his mother not to leave the house until the bailiffs complied with the requirements of the law and showed their warrant; for this the son was charged with inciting his mother to resist the bailiffs, and was sent to prison for two months. The sentence was appealed against; the counsel for the son alleged no extenuating circumstances in mitigation of the sentence; he addressed himself to the fact that the depositions disclosed no evidence whatever, and urged that he was entitled to acquittal on a question of law. The County Court Judge contented himself with reducing the sentence from two months' to one month's imprisonment. That was the statement which he had received from the counsel employed in the case, and he had every reason to believe that it was to be regarded as substantially true. That, he thought, showed the mode in which the Resident Magistrates in that district were pursuing their work. He would also refer to another case not mentioned by him on a previous occasion. A man named Kelly was prosecuted at Loughrea for intimidating a shopkeeper. It was stated that a person came into a shop and asked for a globe for a lamp, and that Kelly told the shopkeeper that if he sold any goods to this man he would leave the shop. The shopkeeper himself was not called by the police; but two policemen gave evidence that they had applied for goods. The reply was that he had not refused, but that he had not got lamp globes. This man Kelly was actually sent to prison for a month with hard labour. Curiously enough, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had seen Kelly talking afterwards with the man whom he was alleged to have intimidated, and he could say that the meeting was of the most friendly character. That was another illustration of the way in which the Resident Magistrates were doing their work, and of the kind of evidence upon which they proceeded. He had adverted the other night to the cases of prosecution arising out of the midnight meeting at Wood-ford. He did not intend now to repeat what he had said. However, since that statement was made, he had found, in some back numbers of The Freeman's

    1551
    Journal, a statement to the effect that when the 12 men were arrested, and charged with having been present at a midnight meeting, the police had sworn informations before them with respect to nine other men—Mr. Blunt and several Members of Parliament—who had taken an active part in the proceedings, but against whom no prosecution was instituted. He asked why no prosecution had been commenced against these nine persons who made speeches, and why 12 persons were prosecuted who took no part in the proceedings, but were simply spectators at the meeting? That was a matter which appeared to him to require explanation; and he desired to know on what principle the selection for prosecution had been made? He would not go into details again with regard to the various charges made against Mr. Roche. He only wished he could bring him into that House, and let him tell his own story, so that the House might hear the gross injustice to which he had been subjected—namely, four prosecutions by the police arising out of matters for which he ventured to say no jury would, under any circumstances, have committed him to prison; he had been connected with a combination of the tenants, and he was Secretary to the Tenants' Defence Association, and it was believed that it was on account of this that he had been the subject of the successive prosecutions. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had also alluded to the prosecution of 11 men for being parties to the demonstration which took place on the release of some persons from prison. He would not go again into the details of that case; but there was one particular point that he wished to bring under the attention of the Committee. Of those 11 men nine were sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour and two to three months with hard labour. In the latter case there was, of course, the right of appeal; in the former it was asked that the sentences might be enlarged in order to give an opportunity for appealing. The Resident Magistrates, however, refused the application. Now, if the two men sentenced to three months could, as he believed there was a reasonable chance of their doing, establish their innocence on appeal, it was clear that the nine men who were committed without appeal were suffering from injustice. He would only
    1552
    say that these were cases he had personally inquired into, and which he believed might be fully substantiated. He wanted to hear from the Government what possible answer there could be to accusations of this kind. It appeared to him that the proceedings of the Resident Magistrates in the district he referred to had been carried out with disregard to the ordinary principles of justice, with the result that a number of persons had been sent to prison on charges on which he believed juries would under no circumstances have convicted. How these matters were arranged he knew not, and he asked on what principle men were selected for prosecution out of a large number of persons who attended a particular meeting? He knew not whether this was done in Dublin or by the authorities on the spot; all he could say was that the general result of the cases he had mentioned caused him strongly to believe that injustice had been done, and it was the opinion of the people in the district that these steps were taken against persons who were engaged in an active war, if he might so call it, with the landlords on the question of arrears of rent, and that the object of the Government was to imprison men who had made themselves disagreeable to the landlords of the district. He knew not whether that was a right conclusion or not, but it was the belief of the people on the spot, and it, at any rate, seemed to him that injustice had been done. He did not say that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was, in the first instance, responsible for acts of this kind; he was probably not aware of all that was going on in the district; but if when cases of this kind were brought to his notice by speeches in the country or in that House no notice was taken of them, if no remonstrance were made to the magistrates concerned, and if no attempt was made to undo the injustice that had been done, then he said that the Chief Secretary himself became responsible. He only hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to show that he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was wrong in the opinion he had formed, and that no injustice had been done in the cases to which he had referred.
    MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, he believed the Committee could not be better employed than in bringing to the notice of the Government

    1553
    and the public such cases as those to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had called attention. On the 15th of February he had addressed to the House some observations on the subject of the Resident Magistrates, and he had named five persons, none of whom had been appointed by Lord Spencer. On that occasion the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who followed (Colonel King Harman) did not attempt to deal with any one of his statements. He had noticed that Mr. Meldon, one of the magistrates, had written a letter to The Times traversing some of the statements; but, at the same time, putting into his mouth assertions which he (Mr. Ellis) had never used in that House. He (Mr. Ellis) had found in Hansard's Debates a very accurate report of what he had said, and upon every word of that report he took his stand. The report was as follows—
    "Another magistrate was Mr. Meldon, at Limerick. He (Mr. Ellis) knew nothing of that gentleman's character; but Mr. Meldon had done that which would not he tolerated in England for a single moment. Certain persons were charged before the magistrates in Court, The case was heard, and the accused were discharged. Mr. Meldon, however, went outside the Court, and gave instructions in regard to particular persons that they should be again arrested. He then took his seat upon the Bench, and the prisoners were brought before him as a magistrate under the Coercion Act on the same charge as that upon which they had been acquitted by the magistrates a short time before."—(3 Hansard, [322] 488.)
    Those were the words he had uttered, and by them he should abide. If hon. Members would refer to the report of this matter in The Times of the 21st of January, they would find that his statements were perfectly accurate. The Times report of his speech of the 15th February made him (Mr. Ellis) say the accused were dismissed, which Mr. Meldon denied. What he did say was that they were discharged, which was perfectly true. The men were discharged and set at liberty, and Mr. Meldon went outside the Court; the prisoners were brought inside and convicted. He had nothing whatever to withdraw in this matter. He did not understand why it should be left to these magistrates to write to the papers, and why it was that the Chief Secretary, or his subordinates, did not rise in their places, and deal with the
    1554
    cases brought forward. He would now turn to another case—namely, that of the notorious Captain Seagrave, who had admitted that he had absolutely failed twice to pass the examination for the Army; that he had gone to Cape Town and served there in the Mounted Police; but who was now placed by the Government in the responsible position of Resident Magistrate in Ireland. A case came before this magistrate only on Thursday last, which was thus reported in The Freeman's Journal of Friday, 24th February—
    ''At the sitting of the Court, Captain Seagrave said that, with the permission of the Chairman, he wanted to make a few remarks before the proceedings commenced. A meeting had been held on the Sunday after the last sitting of the Court, and several people spoke. One gentleman speaking, said that the reason they adjourned the Court that day was because they had a communication with Mr. Yates, District Inspector, who announced that he was not ready to take away any prisoners who might be convicted, and he wanted to deny that statement, and say it was a deliberate falsehood. The Bench had no communication whatever with the police. Father Kennedy said that he believed it was to him that Mr. Seagrave referred, for it was he who made the statement, and he made it upon what he considered reliable authority. He was informed by a person who was more or less in the confidence of those who had the direction of affairs there that the trial was to wind up abruptly, and that this course was adopted in consequence of the small number of police. As Mr. Seagrave thought proper to brand it as a deliberate falsehood—Captain Seagrave: I am quite willing to withdraw that."
    What would be thought in this country if a magistrate from the Bench made a speech in regard to the conduct of a person whom he was immediately afterwards going to try, and who, when the prisoner denied his statement that he, the prisoner, had uttered a deliberate falsehood, expressed his willingness to withdraw the statement? Such conduct was an outrage upon all ideas of justice. He was sensible of the great responsibility which attached to the words of hon. Gentlemen speaking in the House of Commons; but he had investigated these cases with some considerable attention, and he stood by every word he uttered on the 15th of February. This case certainly demanded an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. The Government might be perfectly satisfied of this—that he and his hon. Friends would go on, undeterred by anything which

    1555
    was said, either in or out of the House, examining and criticizing the conduct of the Resident Magistrates of Ireland.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J. E. Ellis) was perfectly at liberty to criticize the conduct of Resident Magistrates or of anybody else who came under the cognizance of the House, and he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) should be the last person to object to legitimate criticism; but the hon. Gentleman, in common with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) who had opened the debate upon this Vote, said that various cases had been from time to time brought under the notice of the Chief Secretary, and that he had not always examined into them. It had been his (Mr. A. J. Balfour's) practice to inquire into charges of this kind when they had been brought under his notice, and the result of his investigations had invariably been to show that the charges had no foundation; that they were made in a reckless Party spirit by some irresponsible journals in Ireland whose statements appeared to be readily accepted by English politicians of the stamp of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. E. Ellis). That hon. Gentleman quoted these articles in the country and in the House, and he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) conceived—
    MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, that what he had said in this matter on the 15th of February he had said in the House, and in the House only.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he apologized for his error, and wished every Gentleman had followed the example set by the hon. Member. He was extremely glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman had not repeated elsewhere accusations made no doubt in good faith, but, as he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) thought, recklessly, which he had more than once made in the House of Commons. He confessed to being unable to give a full account of all the cases which had been brought under his notice, but some observations had occurred to him in regard to some points which had been raised. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had in his speech continued the debate which, in one sense, was formally concluded on Thursday last. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour)
    1556
    freely admitted that cases the right hon. Gentleman had brought before the notice of the Committee that night were not dealt with by him (Mr. A. J. Balfour) on Thursday last, partly because he had not the requisite information, and partly because it was absolutely impossible for a Minister of the Crown to deal with every point which was raised in a speech of an hour and three-quarters, even in a speech of equal length. The first case brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman tonight was that of a man who incited his mother to resist the law. He had made no inquiries in respect of this case, but would have done so had he known that it was to have been brought before the attention of the House. Certain observations, however, occurred to him upon the mere statement of the case as made by the right hon. Gentleman. It was well known to the House that there had been violent resistance to the police at Woodford. What, he presumed, occurred in this case was that there was a conspiracy or combination between the mother and the son, one of whom was probably the de facto tenant, and the other the judicial tenant of the holding in question, to resist the police; and if that were so, and he presumed it was so, there could be no objection to punishing the more responsible party of the two, whom he took to be the son.
    MR. S HAW LEFEVREsaid, he stated that the charge was not that of resisting the police, but of inciting the mother to resist the police.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman saw something very remarkable in the fact that the solicitor engaged for the Crown was also the solicitor to the Land Court. Had it ever been heard of in Courts of Law that the prosecutor was to have the impartiality of a Judge? He perfectly admitted that if anybody who was Judge in a case was connected by any tie of interest with one of the litigants he would be unfit to try the case, but the fact that the Crown Prosecutor in charge of the case held views of his own could make no difference in the conduct of the Resident Magistrate. Further than that, the right hon. Gentleman, having given his narrative of the case, said—
    "I show you this as an instance of the terrible way in which Resident Magistrates, these removable magistrates, are doing their duty."

    1557
    But, so far as he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) could make out, an irremovable Judge, who was in no way the servant of the Executive—namely, the County Court Judge, concurred in the sentence passed by the Resident Magistrate, and no one had pretended to assert that the County Court Judges of Ireland were wanting in law or in independence. Therefore, when he found that the County Court Judge, on reviewing all the circumstances of the case, thought the offence committed was so serious as to deserve a sentence of a month's imprisonment, he felt assured that the right hon. Gentleman, in complaining of the action of the Resident Magistrate in the matter, had got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Then, the right hon. Gentleman was extremely indignant at the treatment of Mr. John Roche, a friend of his, resident in the neighbourhood of Loughrea. Now, Mr. John Roche had never been proceeded against for anything whatever, except for breaking the law. If the right hon. Gentleman asked him to regard Mr. John Roche as a virtuous martyr, he referred him now, as he referred him on a previous occasion, to the Charge of the Lord Chief Baron the other day. He referred him to the observations of his Lordship, in the course of which, after quoting the words of Mr. John Roche, the learned Judge clearly indicated his opinion that reckless words of that kind had something to do with the ghastly and horrible murder, one of the most ghastly and horrible in the tragic annals of agrarian crime, which shortly after followed the denunciations which Mr. John Roche had been rash or criminal enough to make of the unhappy man who was subsequently killed. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) noticed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) followed in the track of the right hon. Gentleman, and was very indignant with him for the observations he made in regard to Mr. John Roche. He noticed, however, that though the hon. Gentleman had been anxious to defend Mr. John Roche, he had made no corresponding attempt to defend Mr. Francis Tully, the fidus Achates of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury (Mr. James Rowlands). The Government were asked on what principle they singled out Mr. John Roche for prosecution; and the right hon. Gentle-
    1558
    man asked that question principally with reference to the midnight meeting at Woodford.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: And also in reference to the demonstration the other day.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was afraid he could not give the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the recent demonstration. With regard to the midnight meeting at Woodford, the principal offender, no doubt, was the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien); and it might have been a question whether the hon. Member for North-East Cork ought not to have been proceeded against. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member was at the time undergoing a sentence of two months' imprisonment for using intimidatory language in August; and though the Government had been accused by the hon. Gentleman himself and by others of desiring the destruction of that hon. Gentleman, they had showed how incapable they were of carrying out that policy by not proceeding against that hon. Gentleman on the further charge, and in that way increasing his term of imprisonment, probably by one or two months. Whether they were right in that policy of mercy he did not intend to say; but they certainly adopted it with the best intentions. They could not attack the principal offender; and they did not proceed, they never thought of proceeding, no Government he ever heard of had proceeded, against every individual who took part in illegal assemblies of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the man who moved the chairman into the chair on that occasion took, as he said, no other part in that meeting. Why, what other part ought he to take? Could they conceive a much more important part than moving the chairman into the chair; was the man who took a part like that not identifying himself with the proceedings of the meeting; was he not showing that, if the meeting were illegal, he was one of the persons who were breaking the law; and could he turn round afterwards and say "they ought not to have selected me?"
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I pointed out that there were eight other persons who took an active part in the meeting and made speeches, many of them of violent character, and that not one of

    1559
    those persons was proceeded against; whereas this gentleman—Mr. John Roche—who but merely moved the priest into the chair, was singled out for prosecution.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure how the question of the selection of the persons prosecuted is brought under this Vote at all.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he would not allude further to the right hon. Gentleman's criticism upon that Vote. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J. E. Ellis) had referred to Mr. Meldon, the Resident Magistrate. As far as he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) could make out, Mr. Meldon clearly apprehended the character of the criticism made upon him by the hon. Gentleman. Was he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) not right in saying that that criticism consisted in accusing Mr. Meldon of having, after charges were dismissed by the magistrates in the ordinary course of law, come down from the Bench and committed the persons under the Crimes Act whose cases had been dismissed under the ordinary law?
    MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, his statement was that Mr. Meldon went outside the Court. He did not say he came down from the Bench, because, as a matter of fact, he was not on the Bench. He was in the Court and heard the cases tried by others and the men discharged. He then went outside the Court, and, by his own admission, communicated with the police. The men were brought inside the Court again, Mr. Meldon went upon the Bench, and then, upon the remonstrance of prisoners' counsel, said he would adjourn the case to another day.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that in substance the hon. Gentleman's charge against Mr. Meldon was that he had mixed up his judicial and executive functions in an improper manner. Mr. Meldon was not acting judicially in the Court. He never acted judicially in regard to these prisoners at all; all he did was to remand them to where they were to be tried by the proper Resident Magistrates.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: He did not remand them until he was remonstrated with by their counsel.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He was obliged to remand them to the proper Court. He never tried them himself,
    1560
    and he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) did not gather from the hon. Gentleman's statement that he could show that Mr. Meldon was in any way actuated by improper motives in the matter. Mr. Meldon's own statement was that, on the occasion referred to, certain charges of assault on the police were entered in the list of cases to be tried before the Local Justices, and when they were reached he prosecutor stated that it was not intended to proceed with them under the ordinary law, but under the Crimes Act, whereupon they were marked "no appearance." The prisoners were discharged; but it then became necessary to have informations sworn and warrants for arrest issued in order to make the accused amenable under the Crimes Act. The prisoners were re-arrested, and Mr. Meldon remanded them for trial. He did not adjudicate on the cases at all; he stated that the men were subsequently tried; but by what magistrates he did not even know. It was perfectly hear that Mr. Meldon was guilty of no dereliction of duty, and that he did in no sense mix up judicial and executive functions. It was perfectly absurd to found any complaint against Resident Magistrates because they were removable, and it was not true to say that they were the mere creatures of the Executive. The hon. Gentleman had, in somewhat vehement terms, announced that nothing the Government could say or do would prevent him from performing his duty in criticizing the conduct of Resident Magistrates. By all means let him criticize the conduct of the Resident Magistrates; but let him do it with justice and moderation—let him recollect that these men were carrying out most difficult and responsible duties.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: For which they were never appointed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the hon. Gentleman to recollect that these men were carrying out most difficult and responsible duties under circumstances as to the character of which the hon. Gentleman himself had probably little knowledge. Let him conceive these men in remote parts of Ireland, subject to virulent attacks of the Nationalist journals; let him grasp the fact that they had little or no power of defending themselves, and that they were practically obliged to sit still under that storm of obloquy, and he would then see that,

    1561
    if he was to take part in their accusation, under no circumstances ought he to add to the injustice from which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) feared they had already suffered too much.
    MR. DILLONsaid, that in his remarkable appeal on behalf of the Resident Magistrates of Ireland the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) said the Resident Magistrates were suffering from a system of obloquy. He (Mr. Dillon) hoped before sitting down to show that that storm of obloquy was much more directed—and justly much more directed—against the men who conducted the system in the way it was conducted than against the Resident Magistrates themselves. He found fault in the strongest possible way with the conduct of some of the Resident Magistrates; but the blame that he sought to attach to the Resident Magistrates of Ireland sank into absolute insignificance compared with the blame which justly attached to the men who used those magistrates as their instruments. The real gravamen of the charge against these men was that they shaped their conduct in judging great and important cases in Ireland not according to the evidence laid before them, and not in an independent fashion, but with their eyes fixed upon the right hon. Gentleman and Dublin Castle. Every charge of want of impartiality and of subserviency to the Castle which he brought against the Resident Magistrates of Ireland fell with a hundredfold more force on the head of the men in Dublin Castle who kept under their heel these wretched men, who knew that they were removable—knew that they could, at a moment's notice be deprived of their daily bread if they did not carry out the behests of their masters. A Return of the Resident Magistrates of Ireland was furnished to the House last year, and he found that without a single exception the tenure of office of every one of them was the pleasure of the Executive. The Executive could remove these men, could punish them, could deprive them of their daily bread, and make themselves and their children starve without being called upon to specify a single reason. He (Mr. Dillon) asserted that within the last 18 months respectable and upright Resident Magistrates had been punished for no other offence than that they had
    1562
    given the people justice. Take the case of Captain Butler, a well-known gentleman in Ireland, and brother of the well-known Major Butler who was on General Wood's Staff in Egypt. This gentleman held one of the most important posts in the South of Ireland; he was the Resident Magistrate at Mallow, and made the arrangements for the reception of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. He gave great satisfaction to the Executive Government, and, strange to say, to a considerable extent to the people. He was, however, sent by the Government to try the case of 18 young men, who were charged with resisting the Sheriff's officers in connection with the Glenbeigh evictions. He (Mr. Dillon) was present at the trial, and when the Sheriff's officers were called upon to prove the warrant for the execution of the evictions they failed to show that they had any warrant. It was manifest to the whole Court that the Sheriff had been so careless as not to appoint a Deputy Sheriff, and that the officers had no right to evict the people. The 18 young men were, therefore, perfectly within their right in resisting the eviction. Captain Butler had the audacity to discharge the men in spite of the remonstrances of the Crown Prosecutor. What was the result? Captain Butler was removed to Cahirciveen in County Kerry, 35 miles from a railway station, where he had no opportunity of sending his children to school. He was perfectly banished because he dared to resist the browbeating of the Crown Prosecutor. Did they suppose that the case of Captain Butler was not a warning to the other Resident Magistrates in the South of Ireland, and that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken good care that he should not have anymore cases like that of Captain Butler? Young men had been appointed Resident Magistrates within the last year or two, because they were known to be partizans, and because it was perfectly well known they were perfectly willing to do the Emergency work of the Government. It was a contemptible and atrocious system to use Emergency agents and notorious partizans, to place them over the heads of senior officers, and shift them from district to district to do the work of the Government and of the Castle. What was the object of this Vote they were now called upon

    1563
    to pass? They were asked for an extra Estimate. The original Estimate for personal allowances and travelling expenses of these magistrates was £4,500, but an additional Estimate of £3,750 could have no parallel in the whole Civil Service Estimates. The Supplementary Estimate was very nearly as large as the original Estimate. What was the reason? Was it because the country had become so much disturbed since the Crimes Act had been introduced. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had said that the Crimes Act had reduced the country to a state of comparative peace, and yet they had these enormous travelling expenses of magistrates. In short, these were the travelling expenses of the Emergency men of the Castle, who went about the country sentencing all the enemies of the Government to hard labour. The reason why the travelling expenses were so great was that the right hon. Gentleman could not trust magistrates to adjudicate in their own districts, but must needs get Mr. Cecil Roche and two or three others of the same stamp and style to circulate round several districts, because they had proved themselves to be thoroughly reliable He should like to know how much of this £3,750 went into Mr. Cecil Roche's pocket?—he should certainly think over £1,000. Let them inquire for a moment what justification there was for this enormous charge. The charge, undoubtedly, was the result of sending men about from county to county. Who were the men who were most sent about? At the top of the list stood the redoubtable Mr. Cecil Roche. Mr. Cecil Roche was a man who was appointed Resident Magistrate a little more than a year ago, and in the ordinary course of business he would not be called upon to adjudicate upon important cases under the Crimes Act over the heads of men who were his seniors in the service by 20 or 30 years' official standing. They were entitled to ask the Government on what grounds was it they had used Mr. Cecil Roche so largely for this purpose?—for he ventured to say that Mr. Cecil Roche had sent to prison, under the Coercion Act, four times as many persons as any other Resident Magistrate. What were this gentleman's qualifications? They would expect the first qualification would be a record which would raise him in the
    1564
    minds of the people among whom he was called upon to administer justice above all suspicion of partiality. Now, Mr. Cecil Roche was one of the orators of the Loyal and Patriotic Union who, in the month of June, 1886, perambulated this country and denounced the Irish Members as murderers and assassins, and the associates of assassins. Mr. Roche had written a letter to The Times stating that he had done all this for no pay and from pure motives of patriotism. The Committee had often hoard, no doubt, of gratitude for favours to come; and if this magistrate had received no pay for those services, he had, at least, got appointed after the Election was over to a salary of £500 a-year. That was good pay, he thought, for the services this gentleman had rendered to the Government. He maintained that there was no more scandalous transaction on record in the history of English Government in Ireland than that a partizan and virulent orator of the Election of 1886 should now be sitting in uncontrolled judgment on the men whom he denounced only 18 months ago. They were told that they were most unjustly and most unfairly pouring opprobrium on the Resident Magistrates of Ireland. He thought it would be hard to frame language to condemn too strongly the appointment of Mr. Cecil Roche. A book was published periodically, known in Ireland as The Constabulary Directory. The custom in that book was to divide the Resident Magistrates into three classes—the first class containing the names of the seniors in the service, and so on. An extraordinary change had come about this year. When they turned to The Constabulary Directory they found that, whereas in the index the division of the classes remained, in the body of the book, for some occult purpose, the division was not to be found; but the magistrates were classed alphabetically. It was plain that this had been done for the purpose of throwing dust into the eyes of the people who had taken up The Directory, it was obviously done with the intention of concealing the fact that men who were only recently appointed were put over the heads of men old in the service. He took another case—the case of a man who, by his previous records and recent performances in Ireland, was grossly and manifestly disqualified for

    1565
    the position he held, and that was Captain Seagrave. He was a gentleman who was appointed quite recently, and who entered himself in the column of qualifications as in the Army. That, of course, was a commonplace qualification—a great number of these men were in the Army—but he asked them to remember that this man, who was now adjudicating in great political cases in Ireland, a man who, the other day; sentenced a Roman Catholic priest to two months' imprisonment for taking part in a meeting of the League on grossly insufficient evidence—this was the gentleman who was in supreme command at Mitchelstown, and who, on that occasion, exhibited incompetency, cowardice, and brutality. In cross-examination, Captain Seagrave admitted that he had had no legal training; that he had tried several times to get into the Home Army, but had failed; and that it was in Basutoland that he got his commission. He came home from Basutoland and settled in Mitchelstown. This was the man, a junior in the Service—a man whose ignorance and incapacity was confessed by himself—the Home Government selected for the most important trials in Ireland. He thought that the charges in respect to the quality of the magistrates selected by the Government to try political cases in Ireland were fully borne out by these two instances. But there was a third case he might give, and it was that of Mr. Thomas A. Dillon, who was selected to try Mr. Blunt. Mr. T. A. Dillon entered himself in the list of qualifications as a County Justice. As a matter of fact he was a broken down, rack-renting landlord, whose rents had been reduced recently by the Land Commission to the extent of 40 per cent, so he (Mr. Dillon) was informed. But whether that was so or not, Mr. T. A. Dillon's name appeared week after week in the black list of defaulting creditors with a judgment debt of £2,000 hanging over his head, and he was known to be connected with other disgraceful debts for which no judgment could be marked. This was the man who was selected to try English gentlemen for asserting the right of public meeting in Ireland. If the Government had any regard for public decency they would not use such disreputable and disgraceful instruments as the men he had described. He (Mr.
    1566
    Dillon) now desired to direct the attention of the Committee to certain facts which, to his mind, afforded irresistible proof that these men took their instructions from Dublin Castle. At the outset of the administration of the Coercion Act the custom of the Resident Magistrates was to give a sentence of two, three, or four months, or of such a duration as would allow of an appeal. That, of course, was the natural course to be adopted by men who did not want to take full responsibility on their own shoulders. That course prevailed until a certain remarkable oration was delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in which, under the guise of defending himself from the charge of allowing certain men to give bail and go about the country, he pointed out that as long as Resident Magistrates gave long sentences he could not prevent this being done. The magistrates immediately changed their course and proceeded to give short sentences, and this precluded men from the right of appeal. There were cases in which when a man had been sentenced to a long term of imprisonment and he had appealed, bail being accepted, he had on leaving the Court been re-arrested on another charge and committed to gaol for a month, and in this way been deprived of his liberty pending the time of the hearing of the appeal. Would anyone believe that this device—a most contemptible, and rascally trick—to rob men of their right to liberty between the time of the first trial and the appeal, was carried out simply and safely in the interest of justice? He thought it was much more likely that it was one of the many evil inventions of Dublin Castle. He contended that it was a great evil that the poor peasants of Ireland should be at the mercy of such men as the present Resident Magistrates, who, as a rule, were appointed simply owing to their partizanship in favour of the landlords. A monstrous deal of cant had been spoken about the cowardice and absurdity of drawing distinction between priest and peasant—between a Member of Parliament and an ordinary person in reference to conviction under the Coercion Act. As to treatment in prison, he would scorn to draw any distinction between a Member of Parliament and any ordinary man. He claimed that a peasant convicted of a political offence

    1567
    should be treated as a political prisoner; and bad as it might be to strike at the liberty of a private individual with loaded dice, or without the securities that surrounded the ordinary Criminal Law, he maintained that the evil was multiplied a hundred-fold when they so struck at the liberty of a Member of Parliament, for they struck at the liberty of every one of his constituents, and it was in that respect an infinitely greater offence than to deprive an individual of liberty. The grievances of the present system of Resident Magistrates were multiplied tenfold when one came to consider the class of cases they were made judges of. When the protection of a jury was taken away with the Law of Conspiracy as existing at present under the Coercion Act, there was no liberty for the subject. If political feelings ran high, these peripatetic dispensers of justice were regularly sending batches of men to gaol in so-called conspiracy cases, where not a particle of evidence of conspiracy was proved. In one case a magistrate supplied the lack of evidence by saying that he "used his common sense, and had not the slightest doubt that there was a conspiracy." He (Mr. Dillon) and some of his Colleagues had stood their trial in Dublin for conspiracy some time ago; and the Crown then spent several days endeavouring to prove a conspiracy, though the packed jury refused to believe it. However, with these Resident Magistrates there was no delay in the matter at all. They decided a question at once against the accused, probably stimulated by the fact that a modest increase of £100 or £200 a-year might be the result of their compliance with the wishes of the Executive. Such a condition of things was only calculated to cover the Government of Ireland with hatred and contempt. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and those who thought with him, were ever talking to the Irish Leaders about making the Irish people dislike the law. The Irish people would deserve to be kicked and trampled on and starved to death if they respected the law administered as it was at present. For his own part, he would be ashamed to call himself an Irishman, and ashamed of the people of Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would be welcome to treat
    1568
    them with the scorn and contempt which he delighted in showing towards them, if they respected such law. The supporters of the Government spoke of the want of respect for the law in Ireland; but when they said that they were in ignorance of the fact that the Irish people had never known what English law meant. Law, in its truest and highest sense, was unknown to the people of Ireland. He could produce, if he cared to do it now, a long string of testimonies extending from the days of Coke and Sir John Davys—the first English Attorney General they had in Ireland—in which those great lawyers, as the result of their experience, said that, where the law was honestly and impartially administered, there was no nation on the earth which loved and respected it more; but to expect that the Irish people would throw themselves down as before the Car of Juggernaut, or lick the feet of men whose greatest pride was to trample on them and kick them, was to expect what no man in that House would ever live to see. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and his myrmidons of Dublin Castle were the greatest enemies to law and order in Ireland. They were its only true enemies; and so long as this shameful and disgraceful system of administration of what was called "law," with its subservient and slavish tools, was persevered in, so long would that so-called law be scorned by the people of Ireland.
    MR. O'HEAsaid, that notwithstanding the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had dealt with the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), that right hon. Gentleman had been able to justify the language he had used; and with regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), all the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had been able to reply was that the right hon. Gentleman was in the habit of taking as truth all that appeared in the Irish Provincial Press. But anyone who knew the Provincial Press in Ireland would admit that the reports which appeared in the columns of the most obscure papers were as reliable as the information supplied to the right hon. Gentleman by his

    1569
    officials in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had referred to several cases of sentences of one month's imprisonment, to be followed by other sentences of one month, and even to accumulative sentences amounting to three months, and that, too, in spite of all the applications to have the sentences increased so as to give the right of appeal. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) had referred to the case of Mr. Meldon, Resident Magistrate, in answer to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary could only say that the story of the case was exaggerated; but the fact remained that Mr. Meldon had exceeded his duty, and acted as was usual with the Resident Magistrates in Ireland. He (Mr. O'Hea) had followed the administration of the Crimes Act since these Gentlemen began to put it in operation; and he would now refer to the case of Captain Plunkett, who perhaps exercised more authority under the Act than all the other Resident Magistrates together. There was no doubt that this gentleman wielded a sort of absolutism, so far as the Act was concerned. His hon. Friend the Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) was arrested within one month of making a certain speech; he was charged with inciting persons to resist the law, and adopt the Plan of Campaign. The hon. Member for East Cork had been sentenced to cumulative sentences amounting to three months. His hon. Friend edited a paper, in which, with reference to a dispute that was all but settled, he said that the tenants were perfectly within their right in combining to bring the landlord to terms; he had in the course of his management of the journal exposed a condition of crime and vice which horrified every reader, and he received a message, which there was every reason to believe came from Captain Plunkett, remonstrating against the articles which had appeared. A prosecution was instituted against him, and he was brought before two Resident Magistrates. Dr. Hays was summoned as a witness as the person on whom it was said the language was likely to have a prejudicial effect, but the Government did not dare to bring him into court. He had, however, stated that he was not in any way afraid of the Plan of Campaign, and that
    1570
    the advice given he was glad of, because it was the means of an amicable settlement being arrived at. This Gentleman refused to take part in the case, and the consequence was that he was deprived of two positions which he held in connection with the Constabulary. This case showed the petty vindictiveness of the Exective in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the sentences inflicted by the Resident Magistrates, and said that they were invariably upheld when they came before a higher tribunal. But there were a number of cases which came before the Recorder of Cork, who was a Tory, and had frequently given expression to his Tory views, and these sentences were all reduced by one-half. This showed that the Resident Magistrates were not altogether infallible in the discharge of their duties. Again, Captain Plunkett was wanting in legal knowledge. A number of persons were summoned before a Court over which he presided, and charged with attending a meeting of the National League. The constable saw several persons going in the direction of the rooms, and told them that their object was illegal, and that they would be punished under the Act; the constables were not in a position to show that any meeting had been held, or that there was any contravention of the Crimes Act; but on the evidence that they were seen about the case was sufficient for this legal luminary, and although the constables had not established that they had done anything wrong, he said that the onus of proof lay upon the accused to show that they were innocent, and he proceeded to sentence them to imprisonment. It seemed to be this Magistrate's opinion that the legal principle was that every man's guilt must be assumed. Then there was the case of Colonel Carew, who had been mentioned in the course of the debate, and was the Presiding Magistrate at a trial in Tipperary. This Magistrate, in reply to the solicitor for the prisoners, said "I represent the Crown here," and on the solicitor objecting, he added, "I have received my orders from the Government, which I cannot disregard, and I do not feel called upon to give any explanation." He (Mr. O'Hea) could multiply cases of this kind were he not unwilling to trespass unduly on the time of the House. The qualifications

    1571
    of this Resident Magistrate were that he had spent several years in the 8th Hussars, and was afterwards in the Militia, in the bloodless campaigns of which service he had probably gained his spurs. The last case to which he would draw attention was noteworthy on several grounds. His hon. Friend the Member for East Clare (Mr. Cox) was sentenced to four months' imprisonment; he lodged an appeal, and immediately on leaving the Court he was arrested and brought before another tribunal. One of the magistrates was Mr. Roche, who—on the application to have the sentence increased so as to justify the right of appeal—said, that having regard to the persistent course of denouncing the law which had been pursued, he doubted whether a sentence of one month was adequate to the crime of the Gentleman before him. The speech of the hon. Member contained the advice to "shun crime and outrage as you would Satan," but he exhorted the people to maintain their allegiance to the National League, and that constituted the charge against him. The magistrates refused to increase the sentence against him. Another magistrate, however, had said that he could see nothing morally wrong in the speech which would not be an offence in any other country but Ireland. Here then they had it from the Bench that now offences had been created by the Crimes Act, although the Government had always denied that the Statute would have that effect, and he therefore agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) in saying that the administration of the Act was not alone a disgrace to England but a disgrace to civilization, and that the Resident Magistrates dare not do otherwise than carry out the behests of the Executive in Ireland.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): I desire, Sir, to occupy the attention of the Committee for a short time while I reply to the charges that have been made by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). The first case to which he referred was the case of Mr. Meldon, the Resident Magistrate, a gentleman who was appointed by Lord Spencer, and who was a practising barrister. It was charged that in some way or other he, whilst sitting on the Bench, mixed up his judicial and Executive duties most improperly. Mr. Meldon
    1572
    has addressed a letter to The Times, in which he clearly and distinctly states that the charges made against him were utterly unfounded. Mr. Meldon gave the most unqualified denial to the charges made.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: I rise to Order. The letter to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers was written in reply to a speech of mine in which I alluded to Mr. Meldon by name; but I emphatically deny that I ever made such a charge against him as is conveyed in his letter.
    MR. COURTNEY: The point is not a point of Order. If the hon. Member wishes to make an explanation he will have other opportunities.
    MR. MADDEN: Of course, if no charge is made against Mr. Meldon, my task is ended. I understood the hon. Member for East Mayo, in the course of his speech, to charge Mr. Meldon with improper conduct, and I wish to show the Committee that there is altogether a misconception about the matter. The fact is, Mr. Meldon did not act as a magistrate on the occasion. What actually occurred on the occasion has been already detailed to the House. The statement that he mixed up his judicial with his Executive functions is a pure fiction. The next case to which the hon. Member referred was that of Mr. Thomas Dillon. The charge against Mr. Thomas A. Dillon, as presented, is that he had appeared in the black list. That sounds a very formidable position to occupy, but the black list is a list that appears in Dublin of persons against whom judgment is marked. It was even suggested that the judgment against Mr. Thomas Dillon was for a racing debt. The facts are these. Mr. Thomas Dillon is the owner of an encumbered estate, and this judgment is in reference to a mortgage on that estate. I will leave the Committee to say how fair it is to bring a charge of that kind.
    MR. T. P. GILL: There are other charges.
    MR. MADDEN: No doubt, there are other charges; but the charge by which it is sought to discredit Mr. Thomas Dillon is that he is the owner of an encumbered estate, the rents from which are unfortunately not sufficient to pay the incumbrance. It has also been said that Captain Butler, in consequence of some action of his, was removed from

    1573
    Mallow to another position in Ireland. I have made inquiry, and I find that it was during the time that Colonel Sir Redvers Buller was in Ireland that he was removed. It was during the time that Sir Redvers Buller was responsible for the peace of part of Ireland that Captain Butler was removed, and I absolutely deny that it was in consequence of any judicial action on his part that his removal was brought about. It was said that the removal was in juxtaposition to certain action of his; but I altogether repudiate any idea that he was removed in consequence of that action. With regard to Mr. Cecil Roche, I think that gentleman has good reason to complain of the charges brought against him. When the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) opened the debate on the administration of the law in Ireland, he distinctly stated that Mr. Roche was the paid agent of the Loyal and Patriotic Union. Mr. Roche is a gentleman of honour, and he, too, has addressed a letter to The Times, in which he denies that charge point blank.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: He does not deny that he had his expenses paid.
    MR. MADDEN: He denies that he was ever the paid agent of the Loyal and Patriotic Union. I cannot go beyond that denial. The hon. Member then stated that Mr. Roche had made use of certain strong language on some occasion; but Mr. Roche denies in the most positive way that he ever used the language attributed to him. What he did say was said long before he was promoted to the Bench. Mr. Roche complains that what he did say was grossly exaggerated, and the particular quotations attributed to him he entirely repudiates and denies. Two cases have been referred to by hon. Members as illustrating the charge that the Resident Magistrates convict on insufficient evidence, and that they lay down principles as to evidence that would not be adopted by lawyers. These two cases are, however, entirely misrepresented. One case was that tried before Mr. Eaton, R.M., and it was then said that Mr. Eaton stated publicly in Court that he did not want any direct evidence in order to find the prisoner guilty; that it was enough that the accused were seen on the previous Sunday coming from Mass with National
    1574
    League cards in their hats. That is an entire misrepresentation of what took place on that occasion. What Mr. Eaton said publicly in Court was that he did not want any evidence, or any direct evidence, of what occurred after the door was shut to show that it was a National League meeting. He also said that it was a mistake to suppose that direct evidence of what actually took place at the meeting was necessary to ensure a conviction. Now, in this case, there was distinct and conclusive evidence of the meeting, and of the intention of those holding it. No lawyer will be found to say that Mr. Eaton in that case laid down the law in a mistaken way. The meeting was proved to be a meeting of the League held for that object, and it was not necessary to prove what took place at the meeting. Another case referred to is the case of Captain Massey. He is a legally qualified R.M., and he was appointed by Lord Spencer. It is alleged that in a case tried in the County Kerry, persons were charged with taking part in an illegal meeting—namely, a meeting of a suppressed branch of the League, and that Captain Massey said that the onus of proof lay upon the accused. If that had been so it would have been a monstrous perversion of the law; but no such statement was made. It was proved by the most satisfactory evidence that the meeting was held, and the magistrate never said that any such onus of proof rested upon the accused. He commented on the fact of the meeting being held, and added that the accused were convicted in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The statement that the magistrate was satisfied that the meeting was held was totally different to the allegation of a conviction, because no evidence to the contrary was produced by the prisoners. Another incident that had been referred to was that in connection with certain statements of Colonel Carew when certain prisoners were brought before him. It was said that he stated that he had received instructions which he must not disobey. That simply meant that Colonel Carew had received certain instructions from the Divisional Magistrate, and that was that the prisoners should not be tried at Petty Sessions, but under the Crimes Act.
    MR. O'HEA: Colonel Carew said that he represented the Crown.
    MR. MADDEN: I have no information on that point. But what I hope the Committee will look at was this—Was the transaction a just one? What did Colonel Carew do? He simply did what he was bound to do. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to exactly appreciate what Colonel Carew did. He received no instructions as to his judicial action, and he did not act judicially in the matter. The hon. Member for West Donegal (Mr. O'Hea) alluded to the appeals tried before the Recorder of Cork, and he said that sentences had been reduced by the Recorder for Cork. We all know that the reduction of a sentence by a County Court Judge often only means that, an increased sentence having been asked for, for the purpose of appeal, the Judge has properly reduced and adjusted it. The House has been, night after night, discussing the conduct of these Resident Magistrates; but what is the best test to which their decisions have been subjected? The best test is the test of appeals. There has been a large number of cases, but yet up to the 1st of January there was only one single case of a reversal of the decision, and that was upon new evidence, and since the 1st of January there has only been one reversal, and that was upon a technical point; yet it is said that these tribunals are unsatisfactory when there are these means of testing the decisions. If these men were acting as they were said to do, their decisions would be reversed. The County Court Judges, to whom the appeals lay—it should be remembered—have nothing to hope or fear from, the Government. There is no promotion open to County Court Judges, as within recent memory no County Court Judge has been raised to a superior Judgeship. Their decisions are beyond suspicion. The fact is these charges are unfounded, and the best answer to them is that the decision of these magistrates are subjected to the practical test of appeal to the County Court Judges, and the decisions are upheld.
    MR. P. STANHOPEsaid, that on the part of the Government the debate always degenerated into two classes of arguments. The first was the tu quoque argument, and the second was that some of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland had been appointed by Lord Spencer. Lord Spencer would forgive him (Mr. Stan-
    1576
    hope) for saying that, at the time he was Lord Lieutenant, he made the appointments on the traditional Castle system, in more or less the same groove as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, though unquestionably with less partizanship. He (Mr. P. Stanhope) entirely refused to believe that the origin of their appointment had anything to do with the question of the present conduct of Resident Magistrates. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) should think it was sufficient to bring forward a statement of these gentlemen in manuscript, and appeal to it as an absolute proof in favour of their views. He regretted to say that his experience had led him to believe that those statements were not always reliable. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary told them that he had already made three long speeches in these debates, and was consequently relieved from saying much on the present occasion. But in the whole of the speech he had just made the right hon. Gentleman never replied to a single statement of fact made by hon. Members on that side of the House. The only instances in which the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with facts were the memorable one, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, of Hannah Connell, and the alleged conspiracy between mother and son. The Chief Secretary had spoken about conspiracy between mother and son. The right hon. Gentleman was an authority upon the question of family conspiracy; he understood that a conspiracy between uncle and nephew was a possible thing, and, therefore, he no doubt, thought it might also be applied in the case of mother and son. But these were merely hypothetical arguments showing the ordinary temper of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with the affairs of Ireland which he administered with so much grace. After all, what they desired to do was to produce facts, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to oppose facts with other facts. He wished to state a few facts with regard to the conduct of Mr. Cecil Roche, facts which he had taken care to substantiate by sworn information, Mr. Cecil Roche, in a letter he had recently written to The Times, carefully abstained from saying he was not an agent of the Loyal and

    1577
    Patriotic Union, and went about the country lecturing at the expense of that organization. No person over imputed to Mr. Cecil Roche that he received a salary for his services, but people had asserted, and Mr. Cecil Roche had never denied it, that he received the payment of his expenses in connection with his services to the Loyal and Patriotic Union, and that he went careering about the country denouncing the Irish people for whom he was now called upon to administer justice. The point he (Mr. P. Stanhope) and his Friends wished to establish was that a gentleman who had been an ardent advocate of one class or clique in Ireland was not a gentleman who should be selected under the present circumstances to administer an exceedingly delicate Act of Parliament like the Crimes Act. He did not propose to call in question the magisterial decisions of Mr. Roche, for the very simple reason that he probably, like Colonel Carew and others, was merely the instrument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. No doubt Mr. Roche received his instructions from Dublin Castle, and all he did was in consonance with those instructions. But what he did call in question was the conduct of Mr. Roche in abandoning his magisterial duties in order to perform executive functions, and in performing such functions in a manner which even hon. Gentlemen opposite would perceive was unusual. He (Mr. Stanhope) had in his possession affidavits sworn by a certain number of gentlemen in the town of Tralee. They related to the case of his hon. Friend the Member for West Kerry (Mr. Edward Harrington), who was sentenced by Mr. Cecil Roche to a month's imprisonment. On that occasion Mr. Cecil Roche, having been on the Bench, and having pronounced the sentence upon the hon. Member, descended from the Bench and went out of the Court, where there were not more than 200 people assembled. These people being townsmen of his hon. Friend, cheered when they saw the hon. Gentleman being taken to prison. Mr. Roche rushed into the street, brandished his stick over his head, and ordered the police to charge the crowd. Mr. Roche, in answer to a letter of his (Mr. P. Stanhope's) said he acted on that occasion
    1578
    in deference to the orders of Colonel Turner; but he did not use his stick. The information he possessed showed, first of all, that Mr. Roche was so excited that it was quite possible he did not know whether he had his stick with him or not; and, secondly, that the effect of the charge was that a certain number of people were wounded, and that naturally great exasperation existed amongst the population of Tralee. The first evidence he had was that of the Rev. William Casey, parish priest of Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick. He said—
    "When Mr. Harrington appeared on the steps of the Court-house, this latter group set up a cheer, whereupon Mr. Cecil Roche, R.M., rushed out of the Court and down the steps, brandishing a large stick, and called on the police to clear the street."
    The next statement was that of Mr. Edward Murphy, who was Chairman of the Tralee Board of Guardians and a land agent; a most representative Gentleman. He said—
    "When Mr. Harrington came out, a slight cheer was given, upon which Mr. Roche, R.M., turning round, ordered the police from off the steps to clear the streets. I say that I believe the police had been prepared beforehand for this order, in proof of which I say I saw one of them pull his baton out of the sleeve of his tunic, and they, the police, immediately rushed on and batoned the people indiscriminately."
    Mr. Daniel O'Riordan, a solicitor's clerk, swore in his affidavit—
    "I saw a number of people, about 150, in the street near the Court-house, When Mr. Harrington came out in custody a very slight cheer was given, whereupon Mr. Cecil Roche, R.M., rushed out of the Court-house and down the steps in a very excited manner, and, without giving any warning, called on the police, who were drawn up outside, to clear the street, which they, led by him, immediately proceeded to do, batoning every one indiscriminately."
    Mr. Thomas Slattery, Town Councillor of Tralee, swore an affidavit to a similar effect, and added that he himself was severely wounded in the baton charge. This was not an isolated instance of Mr. Roche's outrageous conduct. He (Mr. P. Stanhope) had a letter from a most respectable Catholic priest, Father White, of St. Joseph's, Miltown Malbay, who, having seen his (Mr. P. Stanhope's) account of the incident, wrote to him on the 27th of December in these terms—
    "On last Thursday week he (Mr. Roche) sentenced four hard-working artizans of

    1579
    this town to a month with hard labour, solely because they refused to surrender their right at Common Law to give their work as it suited them. This was 'conspiracy' under the Coercion Act, though it was notorious and known to the police here that these men never conspired either with others or with one another. While being marched through the town on a market-day their friends cheered them. Some priests who, fortunately, were present kept the people back from the strong police escort. Not a stone was thrown, not a stick raised, not a blow of any kind attempted, and yet this Mr. Roche turned round like a a man oat of his senses, brandishing and striking out with a stick or sword-cane and ordering the police to baton the people. I had to rescue one inoffensive old man who was struck down with a blow on the head, and I saw another man brutally kicked while on the ground. I pledge my honour, as a man, and my character as a priest, that no violence of any kind was committed from first to last except by the police under the direct command of Mr. Roche. Think of his shouting out to the people flying from the batons, 'Come on; I dare you to come on.' "
    He wished to put a simple question to hon. Gentlemen opposite. What would be said if Sir James Ingham sentenced anybody to a month's imprisonment, and because the prisoner, when he was being driven away from the Court, was cheered by a number of his sympathizers, he rushed out of the Court in Bow Street with a stick in his hand and charged the crowd at the head of the police? He had no doubt they would be told this was done in Ireland and that Ireland could not be compared with England. He believed the ambition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, if he had any sentiments which could worthily be called ambition, was to govern Ireland on English principles, and therefore he invited him to apply English principles to Mr. Roche's conduct. If the right hon. Gentleman considered conduct of that sort would be proper in an English magistrate, let him publicly commend Mr. Roche for his conduct upon the occasion in question. If, on the contrary, such conduct was to be reprobated in an English magistrate, let the Chief Secretary reprobate it in the case of Mr. Roche. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire (Mr. J. E. Ellis), that the actions of the Irish Resident Magistrates must be carefully scrutinized and constantly brought to the notice of the House. It was absurd to suppose that the second-hand refutations of the Chief Secretary for Ireland,
    1580
    or the third-hand refutations of his subordinates on the Treasury Bench, would suffice to contradict the statements he (Mr. P. Stanhope) and may others had advanced, supported as they were by positive proof, with regard to the conduct of Resident Magistrates in Ireland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would take a Division on the Vote, in order that the House might have an opportunity of marking its disapproval of the unseemly conduct of many of these Resident Magistrates. It was no excuse to say that they were merely the agents of a Government whose actions they on the Opposition side of the House would continue to subject to very searching criticism. They were unable it was true to attack the right hon. Gentleman personally for the barbarous administration of the Act, but they would continue to do so in the person of his agents, and he firmly believed that when the conduct of these gentlemen was more universally known than at present it seemed to be, it would be strongly condemned by the public opinion of this country.
    MR. T. P. GILLsaid, there was no wonder hon. Gentlemen opposite displayed incredulity when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope) was stating the facts about Mr. Cecil Roche, facts which had been vouched for upon oath, and which held the field until Mr. Cecil Roche, or someone on his behalf, came forward to contradict them. It was, perhaps, like pouring water on a drowned rat to say anything more about Mr. Cecil Roche; but this much might be said, that this habit of his of coming down from the bench and enjoying himself with a cudgel on the heads of the crowd was a constant one. It was not merely at Tralee, or at Milltown Malbay, but at other places that he had done this. At Dingle, the week after the Tralee incident, he got down from the Bench, went outside, and ordered a baton charge, taking part in it himself, Some of the crowd displaying their reluctance to submit to this sort of thing, Mr. Cecil Roche had them arrested. He then remounted the Bench and sentenced two men thus arrested to a month's imprisonment. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) had, by his

    1581
    speech, only strengthened the allegations made against the Resident Magistrates. For instance, the hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) had charged Mr. Thomas A. Dillon with having had judgment marked against him on account of a gambling debt. That was an entire misrepresentation of the charge. What his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) said was that there was a judgment for £2,000 marked against Mr. T. A. Dillon, and that there were other debts of Mr. T. A. Dillon's which could not be brought into the black list, because they were gambling debts. The whole answer to the allegations made in regard to Mr. Meldon appeared to be that he was appointed by Lord Spencer. They had had quite enough of that kind of thing. What was it to the unfortunate people who were sentenced under the Crimes Act, that one of these men was appointed by one Lord Lieutenant or by another? They had seen what Mr. Meldon and his like were capable of doing when the Government or the agents of the landlords made charges against the Representatives of the people or the people themselves. He would give an instance of how Mr. Meldon acted when a charge was brought against one of the minions of the landlord class by one of the unfortunate people. Mrs. Collins, wife of a struggling farmer in Tipperary, swore an information that on the 2nd February last a wood-ranger in the employment of Count Moore, named Hugh Peters, fired two shots over her head. Peters was placed under arrest; but when brought before Mr. Meldon, he was discharged without bail. Now, what would have been done in the case, say, of a tenant farmer who fired two shots over the head of the wife of a landlord? What answer did Mr. Meldon make to this unfortunate woman? He told her that she might, if she cared, receive an ordinary summons against the wood-ranger. That was all the interest the Crown, or the right hon. Gentleman's minions, took in the vindication of justice, when the person offended against was one of the people. It was the same kind of interest they took when they managed to let off the Emergency men who murdered the unfortunate man, down at Coolgreaney, and who were now roaming about the country
    1582
    armed with Winchester rifles. Reference had been made to the evidence brought forward at some of these trials; it was certainly of a most startling and extraordinary character. Let him refer to some evidence which was given against his hon. Friend the Member for South Galway (Mr. Sheehy), who was now undergoing six months' imprisonment in Galway Gaol. The police reporter upon whose notes Mr. Sheehy was convicted was called. He was asked if he wrote shorthand? He said he never learned shorthand. Then he was asked if he were a very fast writer, if he was not regarded as the fastest writer in the barracks. He replied—
    "I would not cast a slur on any man in the barracks by praising myself, but I believe I am the fastest writer."
    Then he was asked—
    "While you would be writing a sentence how many sentences would the speaker get ahead of you? "—" He might get two or three." "Then when you completed your sentence, would you skip over what he had said in the meantime, and then catch him up again? "—"Yes; I would try and remember what he would say in the meantime." "When you say you would try and remember, what do you mean?"—"I mean that when I heard a sentence or two I would take it down, and pay no attention to what he would say in the meantime."—" When you had completed your note of any particular sentence, would you wait until he had completed a sentence, or would you take him up in the middle of a sentence?" "When I would have done writing down what I remembered at the time, I would wait until I remembered what Mr. Sheehy would say." "Now, if Mr. Sheehy used language, qualifying language in reference to what you took down, would you take it down?"—"I would if I were able." "Suppose while you were occupied in taking down a sentence which you considered improper, and he got two sentences ahead in which he qualified the language, did you miss that?" "Yes, I would not take that down. I did not take it down."
    Now, the hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. Sheehy) had been taken from his place in the House of Commons and was now in gaol on evidence such as this. To illustrate that kind of reporting, the counsel of his hon. Friend subjected it to a test. He took up a newspaper and read out slowly a passage from a speech of one of the English delegates to Ireland. The constable took it down, and the report he produced was—
    "I as an Englishman have come here to-day. As these wrongs will cease. You have fought our Government for 700. As we. Let me tell

    1583
    you what has naturally grown in the English mind. John McDonnell, come."
    The Crown evidently did not think that evidence was such that they could decently ask for a conviction upon, and therefore they produced a speech his hon. Friend delivered at Clonmel. The hon. Member was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, and then he was taken to Clonmel, where he was sentenced to another term of three months for the very speech a report of which was produced in evidence against him at the former trial. In the case of the hon. Member for West Waterford (Mr. Pyne), the evidence laid before the magistrate was of a similar character. The constable was subjected to a test similar to that applied in the case of the hon. Member for West Galway (Mr. Sheehy), and there he admitted that he took no note of the speech at the time it was delivered. Counsel for the defendant read out a portion of Mr. Parnell's speech in the House of Commons, and then asked the constable to give his version of it. The witness, however, was unable to recall accurately three sentences of the speech. Mr. Pyne was sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member must refer to another hon. Member by the name of the constituency he represents.
    MR. T. P. GILLsaid, he was referring to the hon. Gentleman in the character of a defendant. His hon. Friend was charged with making a second speech, and similar evidence was produced against him. Counsel for the hon. Member stated in indignant terms that the magistrates were sent there with orders to convict the defendant, and therefore it was no use attempting any defence. Very likely to supply right hon. Gentlemen opposite with an answer to such criticism from the Opposition Benches, in a flight of the highest virtue, the magistrates dismissed the charge. But, in the first case, the hon. Gentleman was sent to gaol for three months upon evidence which, in the second case, the magistrates themselves declared to be totally insufficient. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) concluded his speech by referring the whole controversy to the test of appeal, and he said—" After all, the test of the matter is what has been the result of the appeals."
    1584
    That was a very unfortunate reference when they had regard to the action of the Court of Exchequer the other day in reversing two decisions and in practically reversing a third, namely, that in the case of Mr. Blunt. In the case of the blacksmith, Sullivan, and in that of Mr. Walsh, of The Wexford People, the decisions had been quashed by the Superior Court. He could continue for hours citing instances of the gross injustice and brutality and wickedness of the way in which the Crimes Act was administered in Ireland; but he thought he had said enough in refutation of what the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had said, and to justify the contention that the Resident Magistrates had proved themselves the veriest tools of the Castle in the administration of this most infamous Act.
    MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONwas surprised the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) had not thought it worth while to make any reply to the strong case made out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope). He (Mr. Edward Harrington) did not complain of the punishment Mr. Cecil Roche inflicted upon him; but he did complain that that magistrate made up his mind as to the sentence before the hearing of the case was concluded. He himself knew he was to be committed to prison for a month, and half-an-hour before the sentence was passed, a covered car was in waiting outside the Court House to convey him to Tralee Gaol. That showed how much the magistrate acted on evidence. He asked that a case should be stated, but the magistrate declined to do so. His ground for asking that a case should be stated was that articles that appeared in his paper three months before there was a proclamation of the county of Kerry were read in evidence against him, to show he was defying the proclamation of the county. The Court, in its supreme wisdom, decided that that was a frivolous ground of application. As it turned out eventually, the very points he had raised were held to be good points. He did his best during the trial to restrain the people from indulging in any demonstration; but when he left the Court a few children, disobeying what was well known to be his wish, attempted to raise a cheer. No

    1585
    sooner had they done so than Mr. Roche rushed out and ordered the police to charge the people. The policemen, who had been drafted in from outlying districts, drew their batons, rushed upon the crowd and smashed heads right and left. The little children coming out of the Convent school were batoned and scattered in all directions. He saw Mr. Roche flourish his stick and rush amongst some priests and threaten them. So violent, sudden, and frantic was the charge, that one policeman actually rushed headlong through the window of a publican named Doyle. Colonel Turner—Divisional Magistrate for the County of Kerry—was present. He was either in charge on the occasion, or he had no business to be there at all. It was well known in Tralee that Colonel Turner and County Inspector Singleton expressed their abhorrence of the course pursued by Mr. Roche, and that they made representations to that effect to the Castle; but Mr. Roche was so useful in careering about the country, casting newsvendors and the like into gaol, that it was impossible to assail his position. In proof of this he might mention that the Town Councillors of Tralee, a body of gentlemen who represented all creeds and classes, unanimously drafted a representation to the Lord Lieutenant to the effect that in the interest of peace and order in Tralee it was necessary that a sworn investigation into the matter should be held, or that, as an alternative, Mr. Roche be removed to some other district. The Poor Law Guardians, all the representative Bodies, and the Catholic Dean of Tralee, a Unionist in politics, made similar representations; but they had not been acted upon, nor their receipt even acknowledged by the Castle authorities. While men like Mr. Roche retained the confidence of the Government, men of the stamp of Captain Butler, men who did their duty fearlessly and without favour, were sent to remote districts, where their services were little or never required. The present Government seemed to think it was a complete answer to say that these things happened in the time of Lord Spencer. His (Mr. Edward Harrington's) testimony was that things as vile as they could imagine had been done by Dublin Castle under every Administration. The Government had in regard to the affair at Tralee adopted the policy of Dublin Castle, for
    1586
    they had paid no heed whatever to the representations of the various public Bodies. Let it not be said that they made in. the House charges that they would not make out of it. After he had completed his term of imprisonment in Tralee Gaol for merely publishing reports of meetings in a newspaper, so strongly did he feel the battering of helpless women and children for what he considered no crime, but for merely cheering him out of sympathy, that he wrote in his newspaper an article about the affair, making the charges which he had repeated here. He charged Colonel Turner with cowardice in permitting the command to be taken out of his hands by Mr. Roche, and charged Mr. Roche with having used a stick upon the people, and charged Frederick Bateman, the magistrate, with rowdyism. In the paper in which he made these charges he had stated to the Crown Prosecutor in Tralee his readiness to lodge in Court any guarantee for expenses if an action for libel were brought against him. His challenge, however, had not been taken up. Mr. Roche and the rest had been in no hurry to clear their character. The first time he appeared in public in the town of Tralee he expected to be picked up, not for anything which appeared in his paper, but for the attacks which he made on these people in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would, he (Mr. Edward Harrington) thought, do well to interest himself in the case he was about to mention. Some time ago the house of Dr. O'Kane was attacked. Four or five men were arrested at Castleisland, after men had previously been arrested by the local magistrates, and Mr. Roche had let them out on small bail, although they were recognized as having been present at a Moonlighting affair. To show that they paid some attention to the local Press, the authorities had had these men rearrested; but the prosecution had been conducted in such a half-hearted way that the depositions had been purposely vitiated. He thought that the Government were teaching the people of Ireland a very bad lesson by shielding one class of criminals. The nominal Crown Prosecutor in the case was Mr. M'Gillycuddy; the prisoners were defended by his cousin and partner, Mr. Morphy,

    1587
    who had the same office and sat at the same table with him. If men in that part of the country were accused of Moonlighting they had only to go to that office; they could not secure the services of Mr. M'Gillycuddy, as he was nominally the prosecutor, but they could get his partner as their solicitor, and then they would be sure to get off. If the Government gave people the idea that they shielded one class of criminals, he could assure them that they were teaching the people a bad lesson, and it was hard for him (Mr. Edward Harrington), and others like him who advised the people whenever they had an opportunity to refrain from committing crime, to produce any effect. His desire was that the authorities should be able to discover and punish real crime; but he did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman or his officials had any such desire. He did not charge the right hon. Gentleman with wilfully desiring to screen criminals; but he charged the right hon. Gentleman with that—which the right hon. Gentleman so flippantly charged others—namely, with a want of knowledge of the things which he had to adjudicate upon. There were numerous cases of maladministration in the County of Kerry; but he did not want to go into them on the present occasion. He did not wish to overload the weighty charges already made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury and others, and he would leave it to the Committee to say if they were satisfied with the silence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in reference to these charges.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had sought out some adjective which would adequately describe the magistrates whose zeal in the service of the Government was now under discussion. He did not think the term "Resident" properly described them, as the Committee was now asked to pay £8,000 for their nomadic habits, and he did not think "removable" would properly describe them, because he supposed they were certain to retain their positions so long as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) continued to occupy his present post. He might, perhaps, describe them as the kept magistrates of Dublin Castle, and he might say that a more corrupt and
    1588
    servile body of men than these Resident Magistrates never disgraced the magistracy of Ireland. One of them—Mr. Cecil Roche—had been a lecturer of the Royal and Patriotic Union. It was true—as was stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) that he (Mr. Cecil Roche) had written a letter to The Times declaring that he was not a paid lecturer. At all events, whether he was a paid lecturer or only got his travelling expenses, as he himself admitted, it was the fact that he was a lecturer for a partizan organization in the struggle now agitating this Kingdom, and, fresh and virgin from his violent speech in that great controversy, he was placed on the Judicial Bench there to deny the liberties of the very men he had been denouncing. The hon. and learned Solicitor General said Cecil Roche was paid only £500 a-year. Did not the hon. and learned Gentleman know very well that £500 a-year was sufficient to purchase numbers of the venal barristers of Ireland to do any dirty work, and, forsooth, Mr. Roche was to be considered a perfectly innocent gentleman because he was paid not during the delivery of his lectures but after. He had read with attention the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary during the Recess and in that House. The right hon. Gentleman stated that there was no difference between the laws of England and Ireland, except in the small matter of procedure. What did that little difference mean? If a person were tried in this country for a political offence, he would be tried by a Judge and a jury of his own class. In Ireland, however, there was no Judge independent of the Crown, and no jury; but political offenders were tried by two Resident Magistrates who were dependent on the right hon. Gentleman. If he heard a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday, he should be able to forecast the judgments by Resident Magistrates on Thursday in Ireland. He charged the Irish Magistrates with acting in two capacities—as members of a judicial tribunal and as part of the Executive Government. This had been clearly done in the cases of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. William O'Brien), and of others. In the case of the hon. Member

    1589
    for West Kerry (Mr. Edward Harrington) on a cheer being raised as he left the Court, the magistrate seized a stick and headed the charge of the police upon the mob. No magistrate in England would have dared to have done such an act as that. Then people in Ireland were convicted on the evidence of so-called shorthand writers, who could not take down accurately two two words in ten, although shorthand writers ought to be equal to any emergency. Irish magistrates went where the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary pleased, and did what he pleased. The right hon. Gentleman began his career by summoning the Resident Magistrates to Dublin Castle, where he instructed them as to the sentences they should pronounce and as to the manner of their proceedings. Therefore, these so-called independent blameless magistrates, who ought to stand impartially and independently between the Crown and the people, were, in fact, the instructed and drilled tools of the right hon. Gentleman. Then, again, magistrates in England were never removed from place to place except for their own convenience and at their own request; but Irish magistrates were removed from one place to another as a punishment for their impartiality. Then, again, the crimes for which men and women had been sent to gaol were of the most ridiculous character—such as shouting the words of a popular song. The appeal to which the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had referred was to the County Court Judges—the most odious school of the Tory Party in Ireland. In Mr. Blunt's case the Judge said that he was present at a meeting where the Proclamation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was burnt, an act, he said, of insurrection, almost amounting to treason. Could anything be more absurd? The inequality of the sentences was also to be noted. Yet the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary spoke of these magistrates as independent, high-minded men. The names of these men would stink in the nostrils of even the Tories 10 years hence. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, in his ultra-saccharine tones, had boasted that the sentences of these magistrates had—except in one or two instances—
    1590
    been confirmed on appeal. Did not the hon. and learned Gentleman know that the County Court Judge before whom these appeals lay belonged to the most odious type of Tory in Ireland? Look at the judgment of Mr. Henn in the case of Mr. Blunt. Nothing more odious, more ridiculous, more unjudicial was ever given from a judgment seat, even by a Resident Magistrate. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was no lover of despotism, but he would say—away with this miserable sham and let them have in its place a candid and honest and bold despotism. Let the right hon. Gentleman openly abolish the Courts of Law, let him not seek to carryon an unconstitutional system under a mask of constitutionalism, and then they would be able to face the question whether Ireland was to be governed like Russia or like England.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 195; Noes 124: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No. 15.)

    CLASS IV.—SCIENCE AND ART.
    (13.) £676, Supplementary, National Gallery.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he very much objected to this Vote. Perhaps, the hour being late, some arrangement could be made allowing for a discussion upon the Report stage. This expenditure seemed to arise from the desire of somebody to add two or three trumpery pictures to the National Collection over and above the large sum annually devoted to purchases.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he thought this Vote demanded some discussion and explanation. In last year's Estimates, as presented to the House, no sum whatever was asked for the purchase of pictures, and on the 23rd of August—quite at the end of the Session, as his hon. Friend would recollect—there was a somewhat lengthened discussion of the matter, when his hon. Friend stated that a Supplementary Estimate would be necessary for the purpose. But his hon. Friend said most distinctly, as would be found on reference to the report of his words—and they were in answer to the hon. Member

    1591
    for Kirkcaldy—his hon. Friend said the money had not yet been handed over by the Treasury; but, so far as any expenditure by the National Gallery Trustees was concerned, he would undertake to say that they had not spent any of the fees received from the public, which might be estimated as amounting to £15,000 before the end of the financial year. Then his hon. Friend went on to gay that no expenditure for the purposes of the National Gallery would be incurred until the money had been voted by the House. Yet, looking over the Estimates, it appeared that the National Gallery had spent the sum of £676. He was not aware whether these pictures had yet been exhibited; perhaps his hon. Friend could say? It was rather hard, however, to press his hon. Friend upon these matters, because the functions of his Office were so multifarious, it could hardly to be expected that he should be acquainted with the working of the National Gallery, and might be unable to say whether the pictures had been exhibited or not. Speaking as one of the public, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) should take strong exception to the expenditure of money on this particular purpose, following out in this considerations and arguments he had placed before successive Secretaries of the Treasury, that the money devoted to pictures should be expended only on first-rate works of art, and not spent in acquiring possession of pictures which might gratify the particular fancies of the Director of the National Gallery, but which could be of no great interest to the public. He doubted if his hon. Friend or any other Member of the Committee was familiar with the name even of the painter, Mocetto. For the information of his hon. Friend he might say that this artist was an Italian painter whose works were of great rarity, few if any of his examples being known. It was rather a strong measure to give £250 for these panel pictures, which he had not yet seen, but which, before the Report came on, he would endeavour to see. Next in the list came a picture to which he imagined no exception would be taken; but then last came a "Dutch portrait by a painter unknown." He, for one, as representing the taxpayers of the country, altogether objected to any sum of money being expended on pictures by unknown
    1592
    painters. He did not care whether it was £50,000 or 50 d., and he would be borne out, he knew, by a large portion of the public and also some of the Trustees of the National Gallery, who were opposed to the purchase but were outvoted. He would say again what he had frequently repeated in the House—the expenditure in buying pictures should be directed only to the acquisition of first-class works of art, and not buying pictures by unknown painters, even though for small sums.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he was afraid his right hon. and learned Friend had not left him much time to answer his questions. He would not venture in the face of so high an authority to question a judgment on a work of Art, but when his right hon. and learned Friend admitted that he had not seen the pictures, he did somewhat discount the value of his own criticism. As to what was said last year, he then endeavoured to explain that in consequence of the Vote having been suspended for some years, in order to pay off the expenditure which had exceeded the annual average, nothing was put down in the Votes last year. He endeavoured to explain that an appeal having been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Treasury had consented to hold a sum of money at the disposal of the Trustees of the National Gallery, but not as money to be expended this year; so it happened that this sum now asked for was in anticipation of the Vote to be taken next year, and by so much would the amount of £2,000 which would have been placed at the disposal of the Gallery next year be reduced.
    Vote agreed to.
    And it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  EAST INDIA [PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAYS].

    REPORT.
    Resolutions [February 24] reported.
    Resolution 1 read a first and second time, and agreed to.
    Resolution 2 read a first and second time.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the said Resolution."—(Sir John Gorst.)
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, if it were in order to do so, without offering opposition, to ask for an explanation, he should like to do so. The explanation he desired had reference to the latter part of the Resolutions. The Secretary of State for India was authorized to raise £10,000,000 for the construction of railways through the agency of companies. This had the appearance of a departure from the policy of constructing railways by the Government, for the Resolution bound the Government to the construction through the agency of companies and not by the Government. The Committee which considered the matter a few years since recommended that both methods should be open to the Government. He was very much against using the agency of a Company, thinking it an expensive and a demoralizing system for the Government to borrow the money and commit the construction to a Company. But he did not desire to raise a debate after 12 o'clock upon this stage of the measure; he would simply ask whether the policy of the Secretary of State was that set forth in the Resolution, and was there to be no more direct construction by the Government.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)said, if the hon. Member would allow the formal stage to be taken, the Bill would then be printed and circulated, and then he would see exactly what was going to be carried out. He could assure the hon. Member that there was no intention on the part of the Secretary of State to depart in any way from the principle laid down by the Committee of 1884. This part of the Bill merely authorized the Government, when it was cheaper for the Government to borrow the money and lend it to the companies, to do so, instead of guaranteeing loans raised by the companies. It was not intended to supersede the action of Government, but only in borrowing to obtain better terms.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution 3 read a first and second time, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN GORST and Mr. JACKSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 143.]

MOTIONS.
  SUNDAY CLOSING ACTS (IRELAND).

    MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Sunday Closing Acts (Ireland)."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, he did not wish to object to the appointment of this Committee; but he desired that timely Notice should be given of the Members nominated, in order that the constitution of the Committee might meet the wishes of both sides. It was a very vexed question, and the investigation must take a good deal of time. He would ask the Chief Secretary not to move the appointment of the Members of the Committee for three weeks after giving Notice of the names, and then to allow three weeks to elapse before beginning the inquiry. The subject would require much investigation, and the fetching over of many witnesses from Ireland.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he could quite understand that such inquiry would require time and so forth before its commencement. The nomination would take place in the usual course; but he would take care the Committee should not sit for a fortnight after that.
    MR. J. O'CONNORhoped it would be extended to three weeks.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that was a rather long interval.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Sunday Closing Act.

    COMPANIES' ACTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to Consolidate and Amend the Companies' Acts.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Maclean, Sir Bernhard Samuelson, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Mowbray, and Mr. Lees.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 144.]

    EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKMEN BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Secretary Matthews, Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to the Liability of Employers for Injuries to their Workmen, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Ritchie, and Mr. Forwood.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 145.]

    METALLIFEROUS MINES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Cunninghame Graham, Bill to extend "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887," to the iron ore mines of Cumberland and Lancashire, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cunninghame Graham, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Stanhope, Mr. Angus Sutherland, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, and Mr. Burt.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 146.]

    LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (ARREAES OF RENT) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. T. W. Russell, Bill to amend "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," with respect to Arrears of Rent, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Lea, Mr. Finlay, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Hobhouse, and Mr. Sinclair.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 147.]

    SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) EXTRACTS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Caldwell, Bill to simplify the forms of Extracts of Decrees in the Sheriff Courts of Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Caldwell, Sir Archibald Orr Ewing, Sir Archibald Campbell, Mr. Edmund Robertson, Mr. Mackintosh, Mr. Anstruther, and Mr. Cunninghame Graham.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 148.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury to inform the House what would be the probable course of Business on Thursday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he proposed then to ask the House to dispose of the remaining Supplementary Votes in Committee, and, anticipating that that would not occupy much time, he would make the next Business the Motion of the hon.
  1596
  and learned Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), if agreeable to the latter.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had given Notice of two Amendments in Supply; but probably would not take up more than 10 minutes in dealing with them.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, assuming that Supply would occupy but a short time, the suggested arrangement was satisfactory.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Law of Distress Amendment (4–23).

INDIA (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION)— THE REPORT.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I wish to ask the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will be able to lay upon the Table of the House the Report which I understand has been received from the Commission in India on the Civil Service of that Empire.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I should not like to answer the Question of the noble Earl opposite without taking the first opportunity of tendering my thanks to Sir Charles Aitchison and Sir Charles Turner, and the other Gentleman engaged with them on that Commission, for the great pains and trouble they have taken in sifting the matter through and making a Report. As to the Question of the noble Earl, my answer is that I received a telegram from the Viceroy the other day asking me whether I had any objection to the publication of the Report at once. My answer was that I had none, and unless I hear again from him in the course of the week I will lay the Report on the Table.

LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Herschell,)
LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 4.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Certain goods exempted from distress as under County Court Acts, 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 96).
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he rose to propose an Amendment to the effect that where a man owed rent and remained in possession, the term of tenancy having expired and the tenant having no right to remain in possession, this section should not apply. The case of a tenant was different to any other debtor, and some compulsion should be put upon him to give up possession and prevent him from holding over.
  1464
  Tenants sometimes held over until a bribe was offered or a gift of money. If this Amendment were not accepted, holding over would be more frequent. He quite agreed that in ordinary cases of distress goods which were privileged from being seized under an execution should be likewise privileged from distress. But cases were very numerous in which a tenant set his landlord at defiance, and at the shortest it took six weeks for the landlord to evict him, during which time he remained in occupation without paying any rent. This continuing in possession was dishonest, and the privilege ought to be extended to such cases. It was not in the interest of large but of small landlords that he brought forward this Amendment. He had received a number of communications on this subject, and an association in Liverpool had stated that landlords, as a rule, would be very glad to give up entirely the right of distraint if a more summary process of eviction was established. Until that more summary process was established, he thought it would be no hardship to deny privilege from distress to all goods, of whatsoever nature, of a tenant who overheld. The Amendment provided that even in these cases the distress should not take place until after six days from demand had elapsed.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, at end of clause 4 add—"Provided that this enactment shall not extend to any case where the lease, term, or interest of the tenant has expired, and where possession of the premises in respect of which the rent is claimed has been demanded and where the distress is made not earlier than seven days after such demand."—(The Lord Bramwell.)
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, his attention had also been called to the difficulty experienced by landlords in obtaining possession of their premises from tenants under the existing procedure. It certainly was a matter to be considered whether the law ought not to be amended so as to expedite the procedure; but that could not be done in the present Bill. He would not, however, oppose the Amendment; but it was open to the objection that it attempted to do indirectly what ought, if at all, to be done directly.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Distress to be levied by certified bailiffs as under the Agricul-

  1465
  tural Holdings Acts, 46 & 47 Vict. e. 61, s. 52).
  LORD HERSCHELLmoved an Amendment providing for the appointment of bailiffs by County Court Judges. The Amendment laid down that no person should act as a bailiff without a certificate, but that a certificate might be given, for use on one occasion only. This would enable landlords to employ particular persons as bailiffs on special occasions. The right of granting certificates would be vested in County Court Judges, who would be empowered to delegate the power to their Registrars. He thought the same principle should be adopted with regard to the Agricultural Holdings Act, and unless he heard anything which would induce him to think otherwise, he would at a later stage move to include distraints under that Act.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 20, leave out from ("and") to ("bailiffs") in line 24 inclusive, and insert ("such certificate may be general or apply to a particular distress or distresses, and may be granted at any time after the passing of this Act in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under this Act"); in line 24, leave out ("so appointed") and insert ("holding a certificate"); and in line 28, leave out ("appointment") and insert ("certificate").—(The Lord Herschell.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Power to make rules).
  LORD HERSCHELLproposed that rules should be framed to apply to fees and expenses of distraints, as sometimes gross extortions were perpetrated; and he would propose, too, that they should not be limited to £20 as now, but apply to cases up to £50, and even larger sums.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD HERSCHELLmoved the insertion of, after Clause 6, a New Clause, making appraisement unnecessary in cases of distress. Appraisements involved expense, which fell upon the tenant, and neither the landlord nor the tenant was benefited. But he would give power to a tenant to require an appraisement if he wished to have one.
  Moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following Clause:—
  1466
  "From and after the commencement of this Act no appraisement of the value of any goods and chattels taken under a distress for rent shall be requisite, and the tenant shall not be liable for the expenses of any appraisement unless such appraisement be made on his request in writing."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)pointed out that in many cases distress to be successful should be carried out without delay. He was afraid that delays would occur under this Bill.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he would make provision against delays.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 23.)

AFRICA (SOUTH)—THE DELAGOA BAY RAILWAY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I rise to put the Question of which I have given Notice—namely, Whether the Government have had their attention directed to the importance of the Delagoa Bay Railway, and whether they contemplate taking any action in respect to it? I do not desire to make any remarks with regard to it except this—that the matter is one, I need hardly inform the House, of very grave importance and also of the most extreme delicacy. It is because of its extreme delicacy that I will not enlarge on the Question I have put on the Paper. I will, however, say this—I believe the whole test, or the main test, of the Colonial policy of the Government of this country must be found for the future in its dealings with South Africa, and that at this moment this railroad, which gives access to almost the only, if not the only, port on that enormous length of coast, is in danger of falling into hands which, if not hostile, are at any rate unfriendly, and into control which may not merely have an important effect in shutting in our South African Dominions, but may also have an important bearing on our commerce as a country, and be the means of leading to the imposition of differential and hostile rates on our commerce as a nation. I say these are grave matters, and the noble Marquess opposite will know that I have not stated them in

  1467
  their full gravity. But because they are grave and delicate is, I think, a reason not for discussing them without information, but for asking the Government the simple Question of which I have given Notice, and on the answer to which will depend the knowledge of how we stand in this most grave and pregnant matter.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of ONSLOW): As the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies has not yet taken his seat in your Lordships' House, he has asked me to reply on his behalf to the Question put by the noble Earl. I need hardly say that the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been very seriously directed to the question of the Delagoa Bay Railway, both as an inlet for trade between this country and the South African Republic, and also as a competitor for the trade coming in by the Cape and Natal, which is not of great volume and may possibly suffer by competition. Several proposals have been made. It has been proposed that Her Majesty's Government should acquire by purchase the territory now belonging to Portugal. But as far as I know at present a word which the noble Earl may, perhaps, consider "blessed"—the word compulsion—has not come into our international relations; and, inasmuch as Portugal is proud of her Colony and well satisfied with it, she is not disposed to part with it. Therefore, whatever may be the views of Her Majesty's Government, they need not be discussed at this moment. Another proposal has been that Her Majesty's Government should acquire the railway. This railway, however, does not run through British territory; it does not run from British territory; it does not run to British territory; and I believe I am correct in saying that for the British Government to purchase the railway would be an act perfectly unprecedented. I cannot conceive on what ground it can be argued that the British taxpayer should be asked to acquire, and not only to acquire, but also to work and control, this railway. If it is of importance to anybody, it is of importance to the Cape and Natal. The Cape and Natal are out of their long clothes; they are perfectly able to look after their own interests; they are wealthy and powerful, and I
  1468
  have reason to know that proposals for the acquisition by purchase of this railway have been submitted to the Government of the Cape. These proposals have not yet been decided upon. What they may be I do not know, and am therefore not in a position to state. But with reference to the remarks of the noble Earl as to the possibility of differential rates against goods coming in from Great Britain in comparison with those from other countries, we have in existence a Treaty with the Transvaal Government which places goods coming from England upon an equal footing with those coming into the territory from any other country. A Conference has recently been held between the Orange Free State and the Colonies of the Cape and Natal in relation to the better working of their systems of railways, and my own belief is that the outcome of that Conference, which will be made public at the beginning of March next, will tend towards a better arrangement for the working of the railways of South Africa. And, if so, if we can come to a satisfactory arrangement in that respect, I do not fear that this Delagoa Bay Railway will be of that importance which has been made out to us, or the bugbear that some people think it.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.