Sitting of 15 March 1888

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Leicestershire (Melton Division), v. The Right honble. John James Robert Manners, G.C.B., commonly called Lord John Manners, now Duke of Rutland, called up to the House of Peers.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Lord Walter Charles Gordon Lennox, for the County of Sussex (South-Western or Chichester Division).
SELECT COMMITTEES—House of Commons (Admission of Strangers), appointed; Army Estimates, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES; NUMBERS, Vote I.; CIVIL SERVICES (on account); CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS; CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS; CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE; CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART; CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES; CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES; CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Bail (Scotland) * [172].
First Reading—County Courts Consolidation * [173]; Mortmain and Charitable Uses* [174].
Committee—Timber Acts (Ireland) Amendment * [157]—R.P.

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY (ROYAL ARTILLERY)—CASE OF BOMBARDIER ALLAN SMITH.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will explain why No. 16,978, Bombardier Allan Smith, No. 3 Battery, 1st Division, Depot Brigade, Royal Artillery, now residing in Abernethy, Inverness-shire, was discharged, without pension, on the 6th of April, 1866, after serving several years over his first limited engagement; why he did not get the full benefit of the Field Marshal Commanding-in Chief's decision in his case, involving reparation for his imprisonment and other legal wrongs; and whether he will now consent to Smith being supplied, at his own cost, with copies of the documents bearing on his case, but hitherto withheld?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: Smith, the man referred to, was discharged, in 1866, as a time-expired man after a length of service which did not entitle him to a pension, except a deferred one from the age of 50. This was actually granted to him last year. He did receive such benefit as could be given from the Commander-in-Chief a decision; but he refused to continue in the Service, and claimed promotion which, if he had continued in the Service, he might have obtained. The case was fully considered by Viscount Card-well, and the Secretary of State is not prepared to re-open it after so many years have elapsed.

  SCOTLAND—DISTRICT ROAD BOARD CLERKS AND TREASURERS.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether a factor's clerk is qualified to hold the office of clerk or treasurer to a District Road Board in Scotland; whether, in the employment of a Road Board, wages earned by labourers at the making and repairing of roads can be appropriated by the clerk or treasurer in payment of rents and arrears due by

  1267
  labourers to their landlord; and, whether earned wages, intended by the labourer to meet his poor rates and prevent his disfranchisement, and left in the hands of the clerk or treasurer to a Road Board for this object, can be otherwise diverted by such clerk or treasurer?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I cannot undertake to answer purely legal points on a bald and hypothetical statement contained in a Question; and, in any view, must decline to aid hon. Members with, professional advice on points of law through the medium of the Question Paper of this House.

  INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX— WEAR AND TEAR OF MACHINERY.
  MR. AINSLIEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the Income Tax Commissioners have full power to decide within their own districts what amount of deduction may be made for wear and tear of machinery; if the deductions so allowed vary considerably in different districts, even when under presumably similar circumstances; and whether, if it can be proved to his satisfaction that such inequalities exist, he will consider the propriety of amending the law, so as to enable the General Commissioners of Income Tax to call in an expert in cases where the correctness of their decision in this respect is called in question by an appellant?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The General Commissioners of Income Tax and the Special Commissioners are by law empowered to determine what allowance for "wear and tear" of machinery is "just and reasonable" in determining the amount of Income Tax chargeable on the profits of manufacturing concerns assessed by them, and their decision is final. Statements have been made, from time to time, that the allowances granted in different districts are not identical. Premising that uniformity of practice is desirable, it is not thought that the calling in of a valuer would secure it; inasmuch as it is common knowledge that estimates of value made by different valuers of the same property vary considerably. The Local Commissioners of Taxes, being practical men, may, it is
  1268
  thought, be trusted to exercise fairly their functions in this matter; and it is thought they would not object to examine any valuer tendered by an appellant for examination. Moreover, it is open to any taxpayer to elect to be assessed by the Special Commissioners on giving the required notice, should he prefer to go to them instead of to the Local Commissioners of the district.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE RIOTS AT YOUGHAL.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How much money was expended in drafting in police and military into Youghal on the 7th of March; and, what ground the Authorities had for supposing that it was contemplated to hold a meeting on the anniversary of Hanlon's death?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The expenditure of drafting police and military into Youghal on the 7th of March was under £50. The police had received information that a demonstration and a mock funeral would take place; and the Divisional Magistrate himself had also information on the subject.
  MR. DILLON: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether the police instituted any inquiry from the respectable citizens of the district; and, whether they were not informed that there was no intention to hold any mooting?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: No, Sir. I believe the police made all the inquiries they could; but they certainly would not direct their inquiries to the persons concerned.
  MR. DILLON: Is it not a fact that they wore told no meeting would take place, or would be attempted to be held?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The information the police received stated that that was not the fact.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—UNION OF COOTEHILL.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. Patrick Brady, a candidate for a Division of the Union of

  1269
  Cootehill, served a notice on the clerk of the Union, requesting him to call upon persons claiming extra votes to produce documentary proof of rental, & c, in support of claims; whether, at a former election, extra votes were allowed to Isabella Johnston and Edward Smith, though their abatements were only temporary; and, whether, at the coming election, Robert Graham, ex-clerk, will be retained by the Local Government Board as Returning Officer, notwithstanding the protests of the majority of the elected Guardians?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The returning officer did receive the notice referred to, and an extra vote was allowed to Isabella Johnston and Edward Smith on their declaration before a Justice of the Peace showing their respective ratings. It is not the fact that Mr. Robert Graham, ex-clerk of the Union, has been retained as Returning Officer.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—COM PENSATION FOR MALICIOUS IN JURIES—THE QUEEN'S COUNTY.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the amount voted by the Queen's County Grand Jury for malicious injuries at the Assizes last week; has his attention been drawn to the following account of what took place between the Assize Judge (Mr. Justice Johnson) and the Grand Jury as to 16 alleged "malicious injuries" which the police declared were not "outrages" at all—namely—
  "Colonel Garden, as Chairman of the Committee before whom the applications for malicious injuries came, said he wished to draw his Lordship's attention to the unusually large number of applications for compensation for malicious injuries, arising out of intimidation and Boycotting, which came before the Grand Jury.
  "His Lordship said he was informed by the respected County Inspector that the county was not only free from crime of a serious nature, but that it was in its usual state of perfect peace and orderliness, with the exception of one part of the county, where some differences existed between the landlord proprietor and his tenants. During his experience it had been often found that 'malicious' injuries were not malicious at all. The county was now in the same orderly and peaceful state in which he found it on his last visit.
  1270
  "The Foreman said the 16 cases of malicious injuries did not appear in the Constabulary Report, though they must have been brought under the notice of the police.
  "The County Inspector said he could only include those cases which were regarded as outrages at the Constabulary head-quarters;"
  can any explanation be afforded and of the disagreement as to what constitutes an "outrage" which exists between the Grand Jurors and the Police; how much of the compensation voted by the Grand Jury for "malicious injuries" covers cases which were not regarded as "outrages" at Constabulary head-quarters; and, could a Return be granted giving particulars of the 16 cases in question?
  MR. LALORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been directed to the following report, which appeared in The Freeman's Journal of the 9th instant, of a conversation which took place the day previously in Maryborough, between the Grand Jurors of Queen's County and Mr. Justice Johnson, Judge of Assize:—
  "Colonel Carden, as Chairman of Committee for malicious injuries, said he wished to draw his Lordship's attention to the unusually large number of applications for compensation for malicious injuries arising out of intimidation and Boycotting which cams before the Grand Jury.
  "His Lordship said he was informed by the respected County Inspector that the county was not only free from crime of a serious character, but that it was in its usual state of perfect peace and orderliness, with the exception of one part of the county, where some differences existed between the landlord proprietor and his tenants. During his experience it had been often found that ' malicious ' injuries wore not malicious at all. The county was now in the same orderly and peaceful state in which he found it on his last visit.
  "The Foreman said the 16 cases of malicious injuries did not appear on the Constabulary Report, though they must have been brought under the notice of the police.
  "The County Inspector said he could only include those cases which were regarded as outrages at the Constabulary head-quarters;"
  and, whether, considering that the present state of things had been so described by Mr. Justice Johnson as existing in Queen's County for the last 18 months, and that there are 25 branches of the National League in the county, he will advise the Lord Lieutenant to withdraw his Proclamation describing the National League in Queen's County as a "dangerous Association," and "formed for the commission of crime?"
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The amount voted by the Queen's County Grand Jury at the recent Spring Assizes for malicious injuries was £256 5s. I have seen a newspaper report of the conversation alluded to as having taken place between the Assize Judge (Mr. Justice Johnson) and the Grand Jury as to 10 alleged "malicious injuries," which the police declared were not "outrages" at all. The County Inspector states he is not aware of any disagreement existing between the Grand Jurors and the police as to what constitutes an "outrage;" the point in question being merely a misapprehension on the part of Colonel Carden in supposing that all the cases should appear in the one, the fact being that they appeared in different periods. Of the 16 cases in question, eight had appeared on the Outrage Returns for both the Spring and Summer Assizes of 1887; and of the eight others five appeared on the similar Return for the recent Spring Assizes. The remaining three did not appear in the Return, as they were not recorded as outrages. In these three cases the Grand Jury awarded no compensation. I apprehend the hon. and learned Member can obtain a detailed Return of all these cases from the lists laid before Presentment Sessions. Summarized, the cases are as follow:—One case of cock of hay and outhouse burned; six cases of cocks of hay burned; two cases of cow-houses and cattle burned; four cases of dwelling-houses burned; two cases of injury to animals; and one case of stack of barley burned. The County Inspector reports that since the passing of the recent Statute Boycotting and intimidation, have greatly decreased in the county; and the Irish Government can hardly undertake to interfere with the operation of a measure which has been so efficacious in restoring freedom of action by adopting the course suggested.

  EGYPT—ARMY OF OCCUPATION (NUMBERS).
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for War, What number of British troops are now in Egypt; whether any troops, not British, receive British pay, or in any way are chargeable to this country;
  1272
  and, whether he can give an approximate estimate of the cost, inclusive of everything, of the British troops now in Egypt to this country?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: The British troops in Egypt on the 1st instant numbered 3,395 of all ranks. There are no troops there, who are not British, receiving pay from British Funds. The English officers lent to the Egyptian Army receive pay from. Egypt. The estimated gross charge for the British troops in Egypt is £267,409, of which the sum of £110,000 will be repaid by the Egyptian Government, to cover the extra charge involved by their serving in Egypt.

  EGYPT—THE EXILES IN CEYLON.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Petition has been received from certain of the Egyptian exiles residing in Ceylon, praying that Her Majesty's Government will use its good offices with the Egyptian Government to induce it to allow those gentlemen to return to their native country; and, what action has been taken in the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Petition in question has been received, and has been, communicated to the Government of Egypt. No action has at present been taken in the matter; but it is not probable that the sentence passed will be remitted.

  THE MAGISTRACY (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE ABBEYDORE MAGISTRATES—GEORGE WALKINS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a recent trial at the Hereford Assizes, in which Lord Chief Justice Coleridge stated that a farmer named George Walkins had been illegally fined £2 by the Abbeydore Magistrates, and that whoever had got the £2 and did not give it back very quickly would probably find himself in a scrape; and that it was subsequently admitted that the Excise had got this money; and, whether restitution has been ordered?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; I have seen a newspaper account of this trial. The whole case has bean, I understand, referred for consideration to the Law Officers of the Crown, to whom any further Question on the subject should be addressed.

  POST OFFICE—PAY OF PARCEL POST-MEN.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in view of the fact that the parcel postmen in towns are in some cases only paid 16 s. per week; that this is insufficient to enable them to live and maintain their families decently; that they are not allowed, like the letter carriers, to receive Christmas boxes; that their wage was originally based upon the intention to employ Pensioners and Army Reserve men, who had other means of subsistence; and that only about 10 per cent of parcel postmen are either Pensioners or Army Reserve men, he can see his way to grant them what may be deemed a fair and adequate wage, based upon that which is paid to letter carriers?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): There are comparatively very few towns in which unestablished postmen, giving their whole time to the Office when employed entirely on the delivery and collection of parcels, receive wages of not more than 16 s. a-week. At the few towns where wages of only 16 s. a-week are paid, such wages are not below the market value of labour in the district, and they are found sufficient to secure the services of suitable persons. The Department, although it has not prohibited postmen from receiving Christmas boxes from the public, does not by any means wish to encourage the extension of the system. The wages for persons employed on parcel work were not, as the hon. Member suggests, based upon the intention of employing Pensioners and Army Reserve men having other means of subsistence; though, as a matter of fact, in London, where there are about 400 men employed on parcel work, with fixed wages of 18 s. a-week each, the proportion of Pensioners and Army Reserve men is as much as 25 per cent, four-fifths being Army Reserve men.

  LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS ACT, 1887— NEWPORT PAGNELL BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the following Resolution, passed at a recent meeting of the Board of Guardians at Newport Pagnell:—
  "That, having regard to the applications already made under the Allotments Act, 1887, and after duly considering the same, and finding there would be some difficulty and expense to the ratepayers in carrying out the Act in its entirety, the Rural Sanitary Authority do not in any case apply to the County Authority for compulsory powers under the Act;"
  whether a copy of the Circular from the Local Government Board, calling the attention of the Local Authorities to their powers and duties under "the Labourers' Allotments Act, 1887," has been sent to the Newport Pagnell Board of Guardians; and, whether he will, under the circumstances, further impress upon the Guardians the necessity of carrying out the Act?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I understand that a resolution to the effect referred to was passed by a small majority at a recent meeting of the Board of Guardians of the Newport Pagnell Union. A copy of the Circular to which reference is made was sent to the Guardians of that Union. The Guardians are not, in my opinion, justified in passing a resolution that the Rural Sanitary Authority should not in any case apply to the County Authority for compulsory powers under the Act. The Sanitary Authority should clearly consider the circumstances of each particular case, and, according to those circumstances, arrive at their decision. I will inform the Sanitary Authority to this effect.

  SCHOOL BOARD (METROPOLIS)— PUNISHMENT FOR NON-ATTENDANCE.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether John Duggan, unemployed labourer, of 13, Sardinia Place, Lincoln's Inn Fields, was, on the 1st of March, sentenced to, and underwent, five days' imprisonment on bread and water, with plank bed, for

  1275
  not sending his boy, aged nine, to St. Mary's School, and whether the reason stated by Duggan to the magistrate, Sir James Ingham, was correct—namely, that the child's absence was caused by the family being foodless, and the boy suffering from a bad ankle; and, whether he was at the time actually under treatment for the same at King's College Hospital (out patient. No. 2235)?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received a Report from the magistrate, from which it appears that this man had been four times summoned for neglecting to send his son to school regularly. He had been twice previously convicted. On the occasion in question, I am informed, the attendances of the child had been only 22 in 126. For two weeks during this period the boy was sick, having hurt his ankle. The magistrate took this fact into account; but convicted the man, on the ground that the boy had been persistently irregular before he was sick, and fined him 3s. and 2s. costs.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION)— HOLDINGS (NUMBERS).
  SIR CHARLES LEWISasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What is the aggregate amount of Consols, Three Per Cent Reduced, and New Threes, held by the several Government Departments which may be converted by the Government under the proposed Government Bill; what is about the total number of separate holdings of private persons and Joint Stock Companies in such three Stocks; what is about the number of separate holdings of such Stocks of not exceeding £1,000; of not exceeding £2,000; of not exceeding£3,000; and, what is about the aggregate amount of such three classes of holdings?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The total amount of the three Stocks held by the Government Departments is £68,843,000; but I cannot say that it may all be converted by the Government, as in many cases the consent of other interested parties would be necessary to conversion. The Bank of England does not distinguish—and has no means of distinguishing—between holdings of individuals and of Joint Stock Banks, so I am unable to
  1276
  answer the hon. Baronet's second Question. With reference to his third Question, I am informed that, speaking very roughly, the number of holdings in these Stocks is, of £1,000 and under, 104,500; under £2,000, and over £1,000, 13,000; under £3,000, and over £2,000, 10,500—total, 128,000. The aggregate amount of such holdings is, roughly, £120,000,000, out of £558,000,000, the total amount of the three Stocks.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would to-morrow give the House some idea of the quantities of each class of Stock held in Ireland; and whether, in view of the fact that one special class was more generally held in that country than others, it would not be unfairly dealt with?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he could not give the hon. and learned Member the information he wished for; as to the latter part of his Question, the application of principle was general.

  BANKRUPTCY COURT (IRELAND)— CASE OF T. MORONEY.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE WORTHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the wife of Thomas Moroney, who has been imprisoned in Kilmainham Gaol since January, 1887, for contempt of Court, has been meanwhile evicted from their home by the Sheriff, acting under the escort of a force of police, and a Resident Magistrate; and, whether, considering the fact that Moroney has now been in prison more than 13 months, any communication will be made to the Bankruptcy Judge who committed him, or any other stops taken to promote the prisoner's release?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I have already said, in reply to a similar Question, that the Executive Government have no power to interfere.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered the second part of my Question. As I see the Chief Secretary in his place, may I ask him will he state whether he is prepared to make any communication to the

  1277
  Bankruptcy Court Judge on the subject of the release of Mr. Moroney?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): We have no power, Sir, to interfere, as my right hon. and gallant Friend has stated.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CONTEMPT OF COURT—CASE OF JOHN RYAN.
  MR. H. GARDNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether John Ryan, an evicted tenant farmer, was committed to Clonmel Gaol for contempt of Court on the 31st of March, 1886; and, whether, he was still in prison in May, 1887?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: John Ryan was not committed to Clonmel Gaol on the 31st of March, 1886, but on the 4th of June, 1886. He was discharged 12 months afterwards. Ryan was imprisoned not for the ordinary offence of taking re-possession of the evicted holding, but for disobeying an order of the Bankruptcy Court.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— GREYSTONES HARBOUR—COUNTY WICKLOW.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will state what progress has been made with the works at Grey stones Harbour, County Wicklow; how much money has been expended on it up to the present time; what balance is avail-able to complete the work; and whether it is a fact that the place is rapidly filling up, owing to the want of a groin on the north side to stop the travel of the shingle?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I am informed that half of the work has been erected, and that the concrete blocks for the remainder have been made. The amount of contract, including the plant, has been £8,362, out of the total grant of £10,000 made by the Fishery Commissioners. I understand that there has been recently a considerable accumulation of sand and shingle. There has been a proposition to remedy this by the construction of a groin. But that was not recom-
  1278
  mended by the Fishery Commissioners. It will be a matter for consideration, however, when the authorized works are complete, and if there are funds available. In the meanwhile, the movements of the shingle are being carefully watched and recorded.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— HOLYHEAD HARBOUR—THE PLATTERS ROCK.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is proposed to remove the Platters Rock in Holyhead Harbour; if so, what is the estimated cost, and how is it to be met?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)(who replied) said: In answering this Question, I may as well answer Question 35 also. I am informed that the cost of removing the Platters Rock in Holyhead Harbour is estimated at £250,000. The Board of Trade are not now prepared to recommend such an expenditure.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—HEAVY SENTENCE AT MUMFORD PETTY SESSIONS—S. M. COCK.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to a sentence at Mumford Potty Sessions, passed on Susan Macrow Cock, a girl aged 12 years, of 10 days' imprisonment in Norwich Gaol, and five years imprisonment in a reformatory, for stealing a piece of meat value 10 d.; whether this was a first offence; and, whether, under the circumstances, he can advise any mitigation of the sentence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have obtained a Report from the magistrates on this case. The facts are as stated. It was a first offence; but the girl was watched and detected in consequence of meat having being missed on previous occasions when she had visited the shop. I think it is a proper case for a reformatory, as the home influences on this girl were not good; and I am not prepared at present to advise any remission of the sentence.

  GIBRALTAR—TRADE REGULATIONS,
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will inform the House whether the freedom of trade hitherto enjoyed at Gibraltar is about to be interfered with; and, if so, what arcs the restrictions intended to be imposed?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): In answer to the hon. Member, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of interfering with the freedom of legitimate trade in Gibraltar.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked, whether the apprehensions that existed on this question were altogether without foundation?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSrepeated that legitimate business would not be interfered with.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHT: Will the hon. Gentleman define what he means by legitimate trade?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: The hon. Member is as well able as I am to define legitimate trade. I will only say that smuggling is not legitimate trade.

  SOUTH AFRICA—RAILWAY AT DELAGOA BAY.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government are aware that a Dutch bid has been made, equal in value to over £40 per £10 share, for the control of the Delagoa Bay Railway, and that nothing but immediate action can save the railway, and with it the key to British trade and commerce in the Transvaal and East Central Africa, from falling into the power of a foreign country?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: Her Majesty's Government are not aware of any offer for the purchase of the Delagoa Bay Railway, or of any of the shares in that undertaking; and as to the question of Her Majesty's Government concerning themselves in it, I must refer the hon. Member to my statement on the 5th of March, that it has not been entertained by Her Majesty's Government, because the railway in question does not tra-
  1280
  verse, and is not intended to enter, British territory.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—SENTENCE ON A NEWSVENDOR.
  MR. FIRTHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true (as stated in The Star newspaper of the 10th of March) that on the 2nd of March, at Dingle, in County Kerry, a newsvendor, named Patrick Ferriter, was sentenced, to three months' hard labour for selling a copy of United Ireland to a policeman named Reddy; whether in order to obtain the paper, the policeman falsely represented his name to be Tynan, and described himself as a Wexford tailor out of work; whether the sale of the paper took place in November, 1887; and, whether the policeman has been promoted or censured?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Sir, Patrick Ferriter was sentenced at Dingle on the 2nd of March to three months' imprisonment for selling United Ireland, containing reports of suppressed branches of the National League. The constable denies that he gave the name of Tynan, but he did represent himself as a tailor. The sale did take place in November last, and the prosecution was instituted soon after; but the case had to be adjourned from time to time. The policeman has not been promoted or censured.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I wish to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether the adjournments from November to the trial were not on every occasion at the instance of the Crown; and, whether at the trial Mr. Ferriter applied for a further adjournment, as his solicitor was engaged at the Assizes at Tralee, and was refused?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I cannot reply to the first part of the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman in the affirmative, because twice Ferriter was unable to appear at the Sessions in consequence of undergoing imprisonment for committing assaults on the police. I cannot say, at the present moment, what wore the reasons for the other adjournments; but if the hon. and learned

  1281
  Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper I will answer it.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given his answer on the report in a paper, and cannot he say whether or not this was in the paper?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I did not give my answer from the report in the paper. I have stated that on two occasions Ferriter was in prison.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Well, I will put the Question down.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This man had three months for soiling United Ireland. Would it not have been equally an offence if he had refused to sell it, as in the recent case of refusing to sell turf?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I think that is a matter of opinion. It is hardly a matter for a Question.

  CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—EXAMINATION FOR OUT-PORT CLERKSHIPS.
  MR. TUITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, How many out-door officers of Customs who had completed the prescribed three years' service, and whose conduct and abilities had never been questioned, wore debarred from the examination held in 1886 for out-port clerkships; and also from the examination held in January, 1888, for Examining Officers of Customs; and, whether the officers in each of the cases referred to wore debarred solely in consequence of private Reports made by the collectors, and of which the officers had no intimation whatever; and, if so, will the Board of Customs inform the officers of the nature of the charges made against them, and afford them an opportunity of replying thereto?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I am informed that no single officer was refused permission to compete at either of the examinations mentioned under the circumstances stated in the Question. This being so, it is unnecessary for me to answer the second paragraph of the Question.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE RIVER BANN.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the Resolutions of the
  1282
  Toome meeting of the 10th ultimo, as to the Bann drainage; and, if he can state when, and how, the Government propose to legislate on the subject?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The attention of the Government has been called to the Resolutions alluded to. They hope to introduce legislation on the subject at the earliest practicable date.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the proposed legislation will be introduced before Easter?
  COLONEL KING HARMANsaid, one Bill in connection with the subject would be laid before the House before Easter. He could not say whether or not it would be the Bill relating to the Bann.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Lord Advocate, If he can now state when the Universities (Scotland) Bill is likely to be introduced?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Yes, Sir; this Bill will be introduced in "another place" to-morrow, or on Monday.

  LOTTERIES ACT—PRIZE DRAWING AT SWORDS, COUNTY DUBLIN.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a "Grand bazaar and drawing of prizes" to be held at Swords, County Dublin, on Sunday, the 18th of March, for which lottery tickets have been issued; whether the prizes are—
  "A £20 note, the gift of Sir Thomas II. Grattan Esmonde, M.P.; a fat pig; portraits of the Most Rev. Dr. Walsh and Most Rev. Dr. Croke; a fat sheep; portraits of C. S. Parnell and W. E. Gladstone; a box of foreign cigars; portraits of Cardinal Manning and Cardinal Newman; a beautiful meerschaum pipe;"
  and other articles; whether the law in Ireland is the same as that in England in reference to such lotteries; and, if so, will he call the attention of the Public Prosecutor to the matter; and, what course it is proposed to be taken with regard to the lottery to be held in Swords next Sunday?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I beg to state that the attention of the Government has been called to the matter referred to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman. The law in Ireland is the same as that in England in reference to such lotteries; and the Irish Government will consult their Law Officers as to the steps that should be taken with regard to bazaars such as that referred to.
  MR. COBBasked the Secretary of State to the Homo Department, whether, in consequence of the answers given to Questions on both sides of the House with regard to lotteries in England, steps had been taken with regard to them; and, whether the reference to the Public Prosecutor really meant anything?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, the reference to the Public Prosecutor meant that the cases would be dealt with as the law directed. He presumed that the Public Prosecutor would exorcise his judgment as to the expediency of proceeding or not in particular cases. He believed the rule was that when the Public Prosecutor drew attention to the fact of such lotteries being held, the promoters revoked the drawing, and it proceeded no further.
  MR. COBBinquired, whether he was to understand that such lotteries had been stopped, in consequence of the action of the Public Prosecutor?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, frequently, Sir. Sometimes the originator of the lottery was unable to return all the subscriptions, because he did not know where to address the subscribers.

  POST OFFICE—REDIRECTION OF LETTERS AND POST CARDS.
  MR. POMFRETasked the Postmaster General, Upon what principle letters coming from any foreign country within the Postal Union can be re-directed to any place within the United Kingdom, or to another country within the Union, without any additional charge for postage or registration, whilst every letter, post-card, or postal packet, posted within the United Kingdom, is liable to additional charge for ouch re direction—
  1284
  "Unless the original and second address be within the delivery of the same post-office, sub-office, or rural walk; and even in that case they are not exempt from a second postage unless the re-direction be made by an officer of the Post Office."
  The hon. Gentleman also asked, Whether, as under existing Regulations, the whole of the London District is at present regarded as within the same official delivery for the re-direction of letters, free of charge, whilst in country districts letters, post-cards, and parcels, oven when re-directed by Post Office officials to sub-offices and rural walks from the same post town, are liable to second postage, there is any objection to place residents in country districts, having a common post town (many of whom are now suffering from extreme agricultural and trade depression) in an equal position and under similar Regulations as the more wealthy residents within the Metropolitan area?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): As regards the first of the hon. Member's Questions, I should explain that the exemption from charge on letters between countries of the Postal Union was assented to by this country, not willingly, but entirely in deference to the wishes of the majority of the representatives of the countries belonging to the Union. In reply to the second Question, I should state that the London District has, from the first, been looked upon, for purposes of re-direction, as forming one free delivery; but the question of a charge, even in London, has more than once been considered, with the view of doing away with the exceptional arrangement; and, although there is no present intention of making such a change, the point must be considered as reserved only.

  IRELAND—REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND—COUNTY LEITRIM.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the amount of the Reproductive Loan Fund to the credit of the County of Leitrim; how many loans have been granted within the last two y ears; what is their amount; and, what rate of interest is allowed on the portion of the Fund which has not been borrowed?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (who replied) said: The balance of cash and stock of this Fund lying to the credit of the County Leitrim at the present date is £1,957. No loans have been granted within the last two years, nor were any recommended during that period. The Fund is invested in Three per Cent. Consols.

  BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—MOHILL SCHOOLS.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When advances will be made to the Rev. "F. Donohue, P.P., the manager of Mohill Schools, on account of the money expended by him on the faith of grants which the Education Board has boon in the habit of making for school buildings, but which the Board has not been yet able to make, owing to the funds placed at their disposal last year for these purposes having become exhausted?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Commissioners of National Education inform me they are unable at present to state when they will be in a position to deal with the application, put forward for the first time on the 5th of this month by the Rev. F. Donohue, for a grant to build a vested school-house to replace the non-vested school-house in which the Mohill Convent National School is conducted, and that they have already communicated with the rev. gentleman to that effect.
  MR. HAYDEN: Is it probable the amount will be granted this year?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, it was impossible for them to say when it would be granted?

  CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in all his dealings with the case of the Civil Service writers, he has ever afforded them an opportunity of being personally heard through their representatives; and, if not, whether, having regard to the constant opportunities enjoyed by Heads of Departments and Treasury Officials of expressing their opinions, he would now consent to receive a representative of the writers?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The case of the copyists has been dealt with by a Committee of Heads of Departments, and upon their Report a considerable improvement has been effected in the conditions of copyist service. The whole matter will now be laid before the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments. In this state of affairs it does not seem desirable that I should receive a representative of the copyists.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE CONSTABLES—ASSAULTS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in November last, Messrs. Burn and Berridge, solicitors, of Pancras Lane, City, applied to Sir Charles Warren for information which would assist in the identification of certain policemen who, as they allege, had assaulted their clients; and, whether the information asked for was not given, and a letter was written on behalf of the Chief Commissioner, declining to render any assistance; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Messrs. Burn and Berridge did not apply for the identification of any specified policeman, nor did they name any person as having been assaulted. They made a general application to be furnished with a list of the names and numbers of bodies of police who were on duty at certain points on the 13th of November. Under those circumstances, the Chief Commissioner, acting on the opinion of his legal adviser, did not consider it to be a part of his duty to give the information asked for. I see no reason to take further action in the matter.

  EGYPT—A NEW LOAN OF £2,000,000.
  MR. DILLONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Government of Egypt is endeavouring to raise a new loan of £2,000,000; and, if so, for what purpose is this money required?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government are informed that the Egyptian Government are desirous of raising a

  1287
  new loan; but the exact amount is still uncertain. The transaction will be economical and prudent. A large portion of the loan is required for the arrangement recently made with the ex-Khedive and his family, and also with other pensioners; as the lands to be ceded in commutation of their yearly allowances are pledged to the Domains Loan, and must be redeemed. The result, however, of this transfer will be a reduced charge on Egyptian Revenues.
  MR. CHILDERSasked, whether this proposed loan would rate among the Egyptian loans?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to give Notice of the Question.
  MR. DILLON: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the House some assurance that this loan will not be finally contracted before the House has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: No, Sir; I cannot give such an undertaking; it is not to be issued upon the security of Her Majesty's Government.

  RIOTS, & c. (IRELAND)—CHARGES AGAINST THE POLICE
  MR. W. ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will investigate the charges of stone throwing and window breaking made against Head Constable Stephenson and other policemen, and sworn to by several independent and unimpeached witnesses at a special meeting of the Limerick Town Council, held on the 9th of February, to consider applications for £4 and £10 compensation for windows broken on the 27th November, on the occasion of the suppressed "Manchester Martyrs" Meeting; and, whether his attention has been called to the following question put to Mr. Brady by Mr. Justice Holmes when the case came before him at the Limerick Assizea—
  "Did they (the police) throw the stones deliberately at the hotel windows?"
  and to the reply of the witness—
  "They did, my Lord, and at our windows;"
  and to the following remarks of Mr. Justice Holmes in dismissing all the applications for compensation, on the ground that they did not come within the meaning of the Act—
  1288
  "They had got the evidence of the ladies that the police threw the stones, for what reason it was difficult to understand, but he should take the ladies' statement for it; that was in other words, that men, not ' rioters,' not engaged in a ' tumultuous assembly,' but brought there by their officers, took it into their heads to throw stones and break the windows. The application did not come within the meaning of the Act; the police were not engaged in ' unlawful and riotous ' assembly; and for the same reason as in the former cases he should make a like rule and refuse the application."
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, it appeared that a serious riot occurred in Limerick on the occasion referred to in the Question. The police were attacked, and stones, bricks, and hammers thrown at them from housetops and windows. On the 9th of February the Town Council met to consider claims for malicious injury arising out of the riot. The Town Council rejected all the claims except two for windows alleged to have been broken by the police. Only two witnesses swore that they saw Head Constable Stephenson break the windows. The two cases were adjourned before the Judge of Assize. Several witnesses swore that they saw the police break the windows; but the two who had sworn they saw Head Constable Stephenson do it were not produced. The District Inspector reported that the report of the Judge's words set forth in the Question were fairly correct. It was quite possible the District Inspector also reported that stones might have been thrown by the police, as stones were thrown at them from the housetops.

  CHARITY COMMISSION—ATTWELL'S CHARITY.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the hon. Member for Penrith, as a Charity Commissioner, Whether the Charity Commissioners have made a scheme by which the yearly sum of £700 and accumulations amounting to £8,000 belonging to "Attwell's Charity" are to be applied by the Skinners' Company for a Middle School for Girls; whether the will of Laurence Attwell provided that the rents and profits should, from time to time, be employed in some good sort whereby poor people, and especially such as are free of the Company, may be set on work, and yet the stocks kept and remain whole, and

  1289
  increase yearly into the revenues of the said kinds; whether he can state what is now the income and what is the amount of the accumulations belonging to "Attwell's Charity;" and, whether the Charity Commissioners will provide for the application of a reasonable part of the Trust income to giving employment to the poor?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question are correct so far as they go. The original Trusts of the will of Laurence Attwell, however, were displaced in 1828 by a decree of the Court of Chancery, which directed that the income of the Endowment should be applied in loans to young men of good character, beginners in some trade or business, with a preference to members of the Skinners' Company. Since the date of the scheme of the Court of Chancery no part of the Endowment has been applicable in the manner desired by the hon. Member; and the Commissioners have no power by statute, or otherwise, to appropriate loan funds in such manner. From the last accounts furnished to the Commissioners it appears that the property of the Charity consists of real estate, yielding a gross income of £ 1,083 17 s. 6d., and of an accumulated sum of £5,745 13 s. 5d. New Three per Cent. Annuities.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION) BILL—.EXPLANATIONS.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Out of what Fund the bonus of 5s. per cent payable under the National Debt (Conversion) Bill to parties assenting to the conversion thereunder of Consols or Reduced Stocks will be paid; and, will it be a charge against Revenue for the forthcoming financial year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): No, Sir; the bonus will not be a charge against Revenue in the ensuing financial year, as the hon. Baronet will see on referring to Clause 13 of the Bill, which deals with the provision of money to meet this and other expenses incidental to conversion.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE(for Mr. HANDEL COSSHAM)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will state, with regard to his scheme for the conversion of the
  1290
  National Debt, whether commission will be paid on ordinary accounts, or only on Trust accounts; and, whether all joint accounts will be assumed to be Trusts, or will a declaration be required to enable an agent to get the commission?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The hon. Member will find that the Bill authorizes the payment of this commission to all recognized agents through whoso instrumentality the conversion of Consols or Reduced Threes takes place, and does not limit it to Trust accounts. There will, therefore, be no question of a declaration of a Trust in this connection.
  MR. MACLUREasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, under the Bill for the conversion of the National Debt, provision will be made to protect Trustees who have invested moneys in Consols to cover annuities under wills, or similarly to provide for ground-rents or rent-charges under wills where a distribution of the rest of the property has been legally made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): the hon. Gentleman will, I think, find that Clause 19 of the Bill gives sufficient protection to Trustees in such cases. Every care is being taken to render the position of Trustees secure in the matter.

  VACCINATION LAWS—PROSECUTION OF CHARLES HAYWARD, ASHFORD, KENT.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that Charles Hayward, of Ashford, Kent, is now being prosecuted for the 60th time since May, 1885, for breach of the Vaccination Laws?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I am informed by the Guardians of the East Ashford Union that with respect to one of his children Charles Hayward has on 18 occasions had orders made on him by Justices requiring him to cause the child to be vaccinated, and that he has been as many times convicted for not complying with the orders. In respect of another child he has been convicted once for not having it vaccinated within

  1291
  three months of birth; on eight occasions orders of Justices have been made on him for the vaccination of the child, and he has been convicted the same number of times for disobedience. He has thus been convicted in all 27 times.

  THAMES PRESERVATION ACT, 1885—STEAM LAUNCHES ON THE THAMES.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of the Board to levy fines upon the owners of steam launches, tugs, & c, who take friends on board (in excess of 12) without payment, or whether the intentions of the Board, in regard to this matter are the same as were stated in reply to a Question put to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board last Session?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The position of the matter is the same now as it was on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers.

  INDIAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
  MR. KINGasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, before any action is taken with regard to the Report of the Indian Public Service Commission, a Parliamentary inquiry will be instituted; and, whether alterations of the extensive character proposed by the Commission will be submitted to Parliament in the form of a Bill?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): It is impossible for the Secretary of State to say what stops will be taken with reference to the Report of the Indian Public Service Commission until he has received the views of the Government of India, by whom the Report is now being considered.
  In reply to Mr. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.),
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, the Report had been laid on the Table of the House, and the question of when it would be printed and circulated lay with the House.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a full abstract of the Report appeared in The Times a few weeks ago?
  [No reply.]

  POST OFFICE—DELIVERIES IN THE NORTH OF IRELAND.
  MR. BLANEasked the Postmaster General, Whether complaints have reached him that, in the postal districts of Newtownhamilton, Camlough, and Beleek, County Armagh, the English Mails are delivered three hours later than if they were despatched by car from Newry Post Office, and if the Postal Authorities will remedy the matter?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): No, Sir. No such complaints as the hon. Member refers to appear to have been received; but if he will be good enough to put the complaints he has received in writing, I will have inquiries made into the matter.

  MARRIAGES (ROMAN CATHOLIC) AT VICTORIA DOCKS—THE REGISTRAR.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether complaints have reached him that marriages in Roman Catholic churches in the neighbourhood of Victoria Docks have frequently had to be postponed, owing to the non-arrival of the Registrar, Mr. Frederick Mulley, Leytonstone Union, Stratford, E?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I have not received any complaints in the matter referred to in the Question, and the Registrar General informs me that no such complaints have reached him. Leytonstone is in the West Ham Union and Registration District. There is no registration officer in that district named Frederick Mulley. Mr. John Mulley is the Deputy Superintendent Registrar; but the Registrar General states that he is never required to be present officially at marriages in Roman Catholic churches.

  WEST SURREY WATERWORKS COMPANY'S PALL.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that the West Surrey Waterworks Company are asking for power to acquire several acres of land on the Thames at Halliford, for the pur-

  1293
  pose of constructing buildings and filter beds, for which they are unfitted, in consequence of such land being frequently flooded; whether part of such works include a wharf or landing stage extending six feet into the channel of the River at its narrowest part, which will materially interfere with the flow of the River; and, whether he will take any steps to oblige the Conservators of the Thames to do their duty and oppose such Bill in Committee, as the riparian owners, who will be injured, have no locus standi to do so, and as the Conservators are, from their Parliamentary powers, the guardians of the stream?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The West Surrey Waterworks Company are promoting a Bill in Parliament, under which it is proposed to acquire several acres of land adjoining the Thames in the parish of Walton, for the purpose of constructing buildings and reservoirs. The Conservators, however, inform me that it does not appear, cither from the Bill or the deposited plans, that the Company propose to erect a wharf or landing-stage extending six feet into the channel of the River at its narrowest part. The Conservators, I am informed, have taken all necessary steps by petitioning Parliament against the Bill; and on Tuesday last, when a Committee of this House had the Bill under consideration, the Conservators appeared by counsel, and on the representations made by them the Committee inserted clauses in the Bill to protect the public interests. Among those provisions is one that no works affecting the Thames shall be constructed until the plans, & c, of such works have been approved by the Conservators.

  ADMIRALTY—WIDOWS OF RETIRED NAVIGATING OFFICERS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will lay upon the Table of the House, a Copy of any Regulations and Orders in Council affecting the pensions granted to the widows of retired navigating officers on the Superannuated List from 1861 till 1886; whether any diminution was made in the amount of these pensions; and, by whose authority or recommendation was it made; and for what reason?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): There have been no Regulations in regard to pensions of widows of navigating officers beyond those contained in the Orders in Council dated 28th February, 1855, 22nd February, 1860, 26th June, 1867, and 22nd February, 1870. No diminution has been made in the pensions sanctioned by these Orders in Council to widows of retired navigating officers, though it is the case that previous to 1880 an erroneous calculation of the time of certain officers, and which it proved could not be borne out by the terms of the Orders in Council, led to their widows being awarded a higher scale of pension than they were legally entitled to, and for the payment and legislation of which a special Order in Council had to be obtained. This Order in Council only governed past cases, and did not establish a prospective claim.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—ENDOWED SCHOOLS—DISTRIBUTION AND NUMBERS.
  SIR RICHARD PAGETasked the hon. Member for Penrith, as a Charity Commissioner, If the Commissioners will be good enough to cause a skeleton map of England and Wales to be prepared, showing the position of the various Endowed Schools and their respective grades; and, in presenting it to the House, if he will furnish at the same time a Return, arranged by Counties, showing the accommodation for and present numbers of Boarders and Day Boys or Girls at each School, and the total charge for Boarders and Day Pupils at each School; if he will add to the Return the present estimated Population of each County; and, if he will supplement the above, so far as he is able, by a similar Return, by Counties, showing the provision which has been made by private adventure for Intermediate or Middle Class Schools?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Charity Commissioners fully recognize that a map showing the position of the various Endowed Schools would be of considerable advantage to the public, as it would show the present state and further requirements of secondary education in England and Wales so far as endowments are con-

  1295
  cerned; but they are quite unable, with their present staff and resources, to undertake such a work without stopping the current work of the Endowed Schools Department of the Office; and, for the same reason, they are unable to furnish a Return in the form desired by the hon. Baronet. The Charity Commissioners have no general knowledge of, and no means of obtaining, any accurate information about the provisions made by private adventure for Intermediate or Middle Class Schools. We can, however, give the hon. Baronet a Return, by Counties, of the Endowments hitherto ascertained to be subject to the Endowed Schools Acts, showing whether those Endowments are or are not regulated by schemes established under those Acts, and, if so regulated, whether they are for boys or for girls, and the grades of the schools so established. Perhaps the hon. Baronet will move for the Return in continuation of Endowed Schools Acts Return No. 29, House of Lords, 1888, and there will be no objection to granting it, so far as the Charity Commission is concerned.

  LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES— LEGISLATION.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade, When the Government propose to introduce the Bill for remedying abuses in the formation of Companies under Limited Liability, referred to in the Queen's Speech?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, it was proposed that the Bill should be introduced in the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor; but the date must depend on the progress of other Business.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS— LEGISLATION.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of the Government, this Session, to bring in a Bill to amend the Jaw relating to Weights and Measures, as recommended by the Standard Department of the Board of Trade, which was promised by the Government last year?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The ques-
  1296
  tion of further legislation in connection with the Weights and Measures Act is receiving the careful attention of the Board of Trade; and if the state of Public Business will admit, I hope to introduce, this Session, an amending Bill.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—REDUCTION OF SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he can explain why, in the Estimates for the Irish Land Commission for the period from the 1st of April to the 22nd of August, 1888, a reduction of three legal Sub-Commissioners and 12 non-legal Sub-Commissioners is shown under the number for last year, whereas the land cases to be heard have increased by 50,000; and, was this reduction made on the recommendation of the Land Commission; and, if not, who is responsible for it?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): As a matter of fact, the numbers of Sub-Commissioners actually appointed during the present financial year have never reached the figure contemplated in the Supplementary Estimates of last summer, which were necessarily more or less conjectural. The greatest number of Sub-Commissioners in existence this year is 50, which is the present number. Provision has boon made for 65 Sub-Commissioners next year, being an increase of 15 over the numbers now engaged. This provision was personally settled between the Land Commissioners and myself in December last, to cover the number which at that time it was hoped would be sufficient, but on the distinct understanding that if the requirements of the service should prove to be larger the necessary sanction would be given; and, as a fact, this has been done, the sanctioned numbers being now raised to 80.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: There were 80 in the Estimates last year; and my point is, how is it this year there is an estimated number of only 65, and how are you going to provide the salary of 80 when you estimate for only 65?
  MR. JACKSON: As I have already explained, the Supplementary Estimates of last summer were necessarily very conjectural as to the number of Sub-Commissioners required, and provision was made for a larger number; but, as a

  1297
  matter of fact, the number was not appointed, and the number in existence is 50. That number was increased, after the consultation I had with the Land Commissioners, to 65, as the number, it was thought, which would prove to be sufficient for the work next year; but, as I have said, on the distinct understanding if it proved insufficient the number would be increased to meet the necessary work, and that number was subsequently increased, because two months after it was found the work had increased, and application was made by the Commissioners and sanction given, the sanctioned number of Sub-Commissioners now being 80.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL,
  MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state when the Employers' Liability Bill will be in the hands of Members?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I cannot state the time exactly; but it will be in the hands of Members very shortly.
  MR. J. E.ELLIS: Will it be before Easter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Certainly.

  CEYLON—RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is prepared to recommend the extension of the railway from Nannoya to Haputale, in the Island of Ceylon; whether he is aware that in answer to a Question on this subject, put to his Predecessor in Office on the 12th of May, 1887, he replied, that—
  "The extension could not be undertaken by Government in the present financial condition of the Colony, but that a Private Company would be at liberty to take it up;"
  and, whether, should the Government still be indisposed to proceed with the construction of the proposed extension, he will permit a Private Company to proceed with it, or to construct an alternative line to tap the traffic of the Uva district?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Governor of the Colony has recently been informed that the Secretary of State is now satisfied that the proposed extension
  1298
  may be undertaken by the Colonial Government. Consequently no question arises as to the formation of a Private Company.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MARGARINE ACT—REDUCTION OF FINES.
  MR. T. M. HEALY(for Mr. MURPHY, Dublin, St. Patrick's) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What were the names of the two persons whose fines of £10 each for offences against the Margarine Act were reduced to £2 each by the Lord Lieutenant on Memorial; what was the date on which the original fines were imposed by the police magistrate; and, if any other Memorials have been received by the Lord Lieutenant, praying to reduce fines under the same Act?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the names of the two persons referred to were Bartholomew Magee and Bridget O'Gorman. They were convicted on February 15. Three other Memorials had since been received by the Lord Lieutenant, praying that the fines which had been imposed upon them under the same Act might also be reduced, and those Memorials were now under consideration.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman have any objection to inform the Lord Lieutenant that all these parties have the right of appeal to the Recorder of Dublin?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: In all probability the Lord Lieutenant is perfectly aware of that.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I also wished to ask, as the only remaining industry in the three Southern Provinces of Ireland is the making of butter, why the Lord Lieutenant has reduced the fines so justly imposed by the magistrates from £10 to £2 without oven giving them the opportunity of appealing?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: When did the three other convictions occur, and who were the magistrates?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: In the first two cases, as I explained a few days ago, the Lord Lieutenant took into consideration the fact that they were the first cases which had occurred under the Act. They occurred almost immediately after the Act came into operation,

  1299
  and the Lord Lieutenant considered that some clemency might be exercised with regard to them. The three later cases to which I have referred were dealt with by the magistrates on March 2, and of course those offenders had more time to know what they were about and had also time to hear of the previous convictions. I cannot possibly say what effect their appeal to the Lord Lieutenant will have, but I should say that probably that circumstance would be taken into consideration. Mr. Woodlock was the presiding magistrate in each case.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentlemen aware that on the day after the proclamation of the County Clare, my hon. Friend the Member for the Eastern Division of County Clare (Mr. Cox) was for a speech then delivered subsequently arrested and sentenced to four months' imprisonment; and may I ask if the Lord Lieutenant's attention was directed to that case under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and if the Lord Lieutenant will inquire into that case and consider whether it is not a fit one to show his clemency, as the alleged offence was committed immediately after?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As the alleged offence was committed after—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Mr. Pickersgill.

  "THE SWEATING SYSTEM"—THE LORDS' COMMITTEE.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is intended that the proceedings of the Committee of the House of Lords, to inquire into the "Sweating System," shall be open to the public.
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I understand that the Committee have decided to admit the public to hear the evidence taken before them.

  SCOTLAND—THE POLICE AT ROGART, SUTHERLANDSHIRE.
  MR. A. SUTHERLANDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to a report in The Highland News of 3rd instant of an
  1300
  indignation meeting of the inhabitants of Rogart, Sutherlandshire, held in the Free Church there to protest against the action of the Police Commissioners in stationing a police constable in the district; whether it is the fact, as stated at the meeting, that there has been no police constable resident in the district for the last 70 years; whether he can state what are the circumstances in Rogart calling for this action of the authorities at the present time, who is intended to be benefited thereby, and who is to bear the additional expense?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I was not aware of the facts stated in the Question, but assume them to be correct. I must decline to answer Questions such as those contained in the last paragraph, which relates entirely to local matters of detail.

  CIVIL SERVICE COPYISTS.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he adheres to his statement that the three copyists whose promotion to the Lower Division has been suspended—namely, Messrs. W. H. Brattle, R. F. Franklin, and T. Knighton—misstated their ages; and, if so, whether he is aware that the gentlemen in question state that they have never made any such mis-statement; and, whether, therefore, as the matter affects their honour and integrity, he will give them an opportunity to prove their assertion?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I am much obliged to the hon. Member for putting this Question, because I have referred to my answer to the hon. Member's former Question, and I think it is open to misconstruction. I never intended to say that the copyists in question had mis-stated their age, nor did I say so. A Rule was laid down for the Sub-Committee, which dealt with the individual cases of copyists recommended for promotion, that those who were within the age for competition for the Lower Division in the ordinary way were not eligible for special promotion; and in recommending these men it must be obvious that there was mis-statement or mistake as to their age and eligibility; but I am far from imputing intentional mis-statement to anyone.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether the hon. Gentleman had made himself acquainted with the nature of the work which Brattle had for eight years been engaged in?
  MR. JACKSON: I think the hon. Gentleman will see that it would not be possible—and that, if possible, it would be very unwise—for the Secretary to the Treasury to examine personally the work of individuals in the Departments. That matter has been referred to a Committee of the Department to deal with. Although I am most anxious to answer any Question upon any subject relating to my Department, I feel that these continued Questions with reference to individuals and their work is creating very great difficulty in the Civil Service. I hope that I shall not be understood in any way to shrink from giving the fullest and most complete information; but hon. Members must see how difficult it is for the Heads of Departments to carry on their respective Departments if individual grievances are to be made the subject of Questions in the House.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the Secretary to the Treasury take steps to ascertain from the Heads of the Department if a certain man, who was employed at 10 d. an hour, has for the last eight years been engaged on confidential work, relating to the advance of the Russians in Central Asia, and to important State secrets, which the Press, if they had been able to bribe him, would have been glad to get hold of?
  MR. JACKSON: I think, after what I have said, I must adhere to the position I have taken up, that it would be exceedingly improper, if not impossible, to examine into individual cases.

  GOLD AND SILVER—HALL MARKING OF FOREIGN WATCHES.
  MR. YERBURGHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether in the paragraph in the Memorandum accompanying the Report of the Committee on the Hall Marking of Foreign Watch Cases, to the effect that while in the assay offices—
  "In London, Birmingham, and Sheffield, accurate balances and modern appliances have been adopted, in other offices less accurate and even primitive methods of treatment have been retained,"
  the phrase "other offices" is intended
  1302
  to include the Chester Assay Office; and, whether the Members of the Committee who visited the Chester Assay Office on the 14th of October last expressed themselves as entirely satisfied with the accuracy of the balances and the correctness of the appliances used therein?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The paragraph refers to all the offices, including Chester, and the Committee, when at Chester, expressed no such opinion as the hon. Member refers to. Had they done so, it would have been beyond the scope of the inquiry.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA—MR. G. W. LEAKE, POLICE MAGISTRATE OF PERTH.
  MR. DEASYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether George Walpole Leake, Police Magistrate in Perth, Western Australia, who has been lately appointed Acting Justice by Governor Broom during the suspension of Chief Justice Onslow, was convicted in Perth and fined £10 for having used a defaced postage stamp; whether he was committed for contempt of Court in the same town; whether he is the same George Walpole Leake who, while acting as Attorney General, assaulted an attorney named Burt by hurling at him a large pewter ink bottle during a trial in the Supreme Court; and, whether the Colonial Office Regulation, No. 75, has been departed from in appointing him?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I have made inquiry, and find that there is no record in the Colonial Office of the circumstances referred to. The hon. Member does not state whether the transactions which he alleges to have occurred were of distant or recent date; but whatever foundation there may be for the statements which have reached him, it is clear that successive Governors have held a high opinion of Mr. Leake's character and ability, as he has since 1857 been on many occasions appointed to act as Crown Solicitor, Police Magistrate, Attorney General, and Public Prosecutor; and he now holds the responsible post of Police Magistrate of Perth, the capital of the Colony. His appointment to act temporarily as Chief Justice has

  1303
  involved no departure from the 75th Colonial Regulation, which relates to permanent appointment.

  THE BOUNDARIES COMMISSION—THE REPORT.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, having regard to the Report of the Secretary to the Boundaries Commission, dated 2nd January, 1888, which states that at that date only one-fourth of the work had been done, and that the work of the Commission would probably not be completed till "about the end of July," he will take steps to obtain from the Commission a Preliminary Report, stating definitely the principles on which the Commission have decided to adjust overlapping boundaries of unions; and, whether he will arrange that such Preliminary Report shall be in the hands of Members of this House before the Easter Recess?
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked, Whether the statement, on page 517 of the Civil Service Estimates, that the work of the Local Government Boundary Commission will be completed about the end of July, is to be taken to indicate that the Report will be issued at that time; and, whether it will be possible to afford to Members an earlier opportunity of becoming acquainted with the general results of the inquiry?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): It does not devolve on the Commissioners to adjust the boundaries; but to make such recommendations as they deem desirable with regard to such adjustment. As regards the Question as to the principles on which the Commissioners will act, I should presume that in each case when the facts have been ascertained the decision of the Boundary Commissioners would be according to the circumstances of the particular case. I will communicate with the Commissioners as to whether it is their intention to submit any Preliminary Report.
  In answer to a further Question,
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, I hope on Monday next to be able to explain to the House the principles on which the boundaries will be drawn. The House may be satisfied that no re-adjustment of boundaries will be determined upon
  1304
  without the House having full opportunity of considering each case.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE DEVON QUARTER SESSIONS—CASE OF HENRY HART.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can now state the decision at which he has arrived in regard to the case of Henry Hart, sentenced at the Devon Quarter Sessions held in February, to two months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for stealing coal, the property of his employer, with respect to which sentence a largely signed Petition has been forwarded to the Home Office by residents in the locality, asking on various grounds for a remission of a portion of the sentence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have carefully considered the case of Hart, sentenced at Devon Sessions, and I regret that I am unable to advise any interference with the sentence, which appears to have been most carefully considered by the magistrates in consultation upon all the circumstances of the case.

  LOTTERIES ACT—THE "BLACKBURN EVENING EXPRESS."
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he has observed that The Blackburn Evening Express (Primrose edition) offers to give away £10 in prizes each week to those who during the week have become possessors of the seven copies of that journal, and will send to its office the coupon printed in each copy; and, whether this is an infringement of the law against lotteries?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I have considered the advertisement in the paper which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me; and, in my opinion, the scheme therein proposed does infringe the law against lotteries.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take action in the matter?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: It is not for me to take action; but I will take care that the attention of the proper authorities is called to the matter.

  IRELAND—THE LORD LIEUTENANT AND CHIEF SECRETARY.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will lay upon the Table a Return giving the dates on which the Lord Lieutenant was absent from, and on which the Chief Secretary was present in, Ireland during the year 1887?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): No, Sir.

  CIVIL SERVANTS—POLITICAL DEMONSTRATIONS—MR. GEOFFREY BROWNING, MR. FOTTRELL.
  MR. T. M. HEALYhad the following Question on the Paper: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If the "Geoffrey Browning," who signed the address to the right hon. Members for St. George's, Hanover Square, and Rossendale for the recent Unionist demonstration in Dublin is the gentleman who receives £1,000 as Solicitor to the Irish Land Commission; and, if Mr. B. Leech, author of a pamphlet against Home Rule, price 3d., is paid a similar salary as Examiner on Title to the Irish Land Purchase Commission? The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that before he asked the Question which stood in his name, he wished to state that as he wrote the Question it would read—"To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Geoffrey Browning, who signed the address to Lord Hartington and Mr. Goschen for the recent Tory demonstration in Dublin, etc." For the word "Tory" the word "Unionist" had been substituted. He wished to know whether the word Tory was an un-Parliamentary word?
  [No reply.]
  MR. T. M. HEALYthen asked the Question.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I will endeavour to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman without referring to the word "Tory." Mr. Geoffrey Browning, who signed the address to the Marquess of Hartington and Mr. Goschen, is the Solicitor to the Irish Land Commission, and receives £1,000 a-year. Mr. Leech also receives the same salary as Examiner on Title to the Irish Land Purchase Commission, and is the author
  1306
  of a pamphlet entitled The Continuity of the Irish Revolutionary Movement. Questions somewhat similar to these have several times been put to me relative to other members of the Civil Service; and it may be as well that I should state the position of the Treasury in regard to the general question as to how far permanent Civil servants are at liberty to take part in politics. There is, I am informed, no written Rule extending to the whole Service on the subject; but the existence of an unwritten but operative law is proved by the rarity of the charges of partizanship brought against Civil servants. Speaking generally, the Rule is as I have before stated—namely, that permanent members of the Civil Service of all grades are to avoid taking any public or prominent part in politics; as it is only under these conditions that satisfactory relations between Ministers and Civil Service Departments, and with the public at large, are possible. Her Majesty's Government—and, I think, all previous Governments—have desired to give to Civil servants, within the bounds I have indicated, the fullest possible freedom as to the exercise of their political opinions; but if complaints that such freedom had been abused became frequent, it would be the duty of the Government to consider what Regulations were necessary for the protection of the interests of the general body of the Civil Service. In certain Departments the Heads have already laid down Rules on the subject; but these Rules are not general to the Service, and Her Majesty's Government rely on the good sense of the permanent Civil Service to make the issue of Regulations unnecessary. I am informed by the Irish Land Commissioners that they have always disapproved of any of their officials taking part in any political manifestation, In the above cases, and also in that of another gentleman, and who subscribed to the fund for Mr. Wilfrid Blunt's defence, the Commissioners conveyed their disapproval to those gentlemen when the matter was first brought under their notice some two months ago. I may add that, having had very considerable experience of the Civil Service, and having had as my Private Secretary, in my first Office of Secretary to the Treasury, a gentleman of opposite politics to my own, and who served me most loyally and faithfully, but who

  1307
  subsequently became Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, and who now holds a high, office in the Civil Service, I wish to bear my testimony generally to the great discretion exercised by those gentlemen in the discharge of their duty both as Civil servants and citizens. I should deeply regret if it were necessary to impose any restriction upon them, because I think, generally speaking, it is not necessary or deserved. I trust, therefore, that the assurance of the Government that Civil servants will be discouraged from taking any active part, by way of public speaking, in politics will be sufficient to prevent the issue of any Regulation upon the subject.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Will the prohibition extend to the Inspector of Irish Fisheries, who made a speech in the General Synod of the Church of Ireland?
  [No reply.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As to the statement with reference to the Examiner on Title to the Irish Land Purchase Commissioner, Mr. Brougham Leech, who wrote a pamphlet on the continuity of the Irish Hottentot movement, or whatever it was, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say whether that pamphlet will, after the remark he has made, be withdrawn from circulation?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir. I am not prepared to add anything to what I have already stated. The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that in times past many eminent members of the Civil Service have used their pens to forward views which they advocated as private citizens. I have in my mind specially one gentleman—Sir Thomas Farrer—who scarcely allowed a month to pass without taking part in political controversies in periodicals. No objection has ever been taken, nor has any President of the Board of Trade, though opposed to him in politics, had occasion to find fault with Sir Thomas Farrer in the course he pursued. I think I have said enough to show that the Government will discourage partizanship on the part of Civil servants, and it must be left to the Heads of Departments to determine at present whether that partizanship is unfair or not.
  MR. DILLON: With reference to this Question, may I ask
  1308
  the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been directed to the fact that occurred in the same Department, that Mr. George Fottrell was dismissed by his Predecessors in the Irish Office because he expressed a slight opinion in favour of a certain provision of the Land Act; and is he, on the face of that precedent, going to dismiss one man because he expresses an opinion on one side, and retain another man because he has expressed very much greater partizanship on the other side?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no knowledge of the circumstances under which Mr. George Fottrell was dismissed.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiry, because this is a matter of considerable importance? I will ask the Chief Secretary will he cause inquiry into the matter, so that the Irish people may not be led to believe that a man who had displayed partizanship in favour of the Unionist Party would escape censure, while a man who expressed an opinion on the other side would be dismissed from his office?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the hon. Member will put a Question on the Paper for Monday, I shall be ready to answer him.
  MR. DILLON: I will do so.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: There is a Blue Book on the subject issued in 1881.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Is there any objection to issue a Rule for the whole of the Civil Service, applying not only to the Heads of Departments but also to the lower officials?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I object to answer a Question affecting a large number of loyal servants of the Crown without Notice.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I shall ask the Question to-morrow.

  ADMINISTRATION OF THE WAR OFFICE AND ADMIRALTY—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When he will nominate the Royal Commission which the Government have promised, to inquire into the system of administration at the War Office and Admiralty; and, if he will

  1309
  give the names of those who are to serve on it, and state the earliest date on which it is expected the Commission will meet?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, the noble and gallant Lord would see that the importance of the Commission was very great, and therefore the Government must exercise considerable care in the selection of the gentlemen who were to be nominated. He was unable to say when the Commission would be nominated; but no time would be lost in coming to a decision upon the matter.

  INDENTURED APPRENTICESHIPS.
  MR. CREMERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will instruct the Labour Bureau to prepare, for the information of the House and the country, a Return of the number of skilled artizans and mechanics engaged in the leading industries of the country who have acquired a knowledge of their various crafts by means of indentured apprenticeships?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)(who replied) said: It would be impossible accurately to ascertain the number of workmen who have been trained under indentures, without a special Census of all the artizans and mechanics in the United Kingdom, which the Labour Bureau has no statutory powers of enforcing. I am informed that the system of indentured apprenticeships has for many years been gradually falling into disuse, although it is still, to a very limited extent, in existence.
  MR. CREMERsaid, the Labour Bureau was in touch with organized bodies of working men, and he thought the information might be obtained by means of such organizations.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that was a very much smaller question than was implied in the one in print. He thought the number of artizans with whom the Labour Bureau was in communication amounted to not more than 140,000. Of course, the statistics relating to so small a number would be comparatively of very little value. He would communicate with Mr. Burnett on the subject.

  METROPOLIS LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  MR. ISAACSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to afford facilities for discussing the Metropolis Local Government Bill, or for dealing with the subject?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, that he greatly regretted that the hon. Member had been unable to secure time on the previous day for the discussion of the Metropolis Local Government Bill; but he would perceive from the state of Public Business that the Government were unable to afford facilities for the discussion of a subject which was of such importance that it required to be taken up by the Government of the day. He hoped to be able in a short time to state the views of Her Majesty's present Government upon the matter.

  POST OFFICE—THE DELAY IN THE FRENCH MAIL SERVICE.
  In reply to Mr. HENNIKER HEATON (Canterbury) and Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith),
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES)said: Before the hon. Members' Questions reached me I had already set on foot inquiries as to what remedy could be found for the temporary inconvenience caused by the block on the French Railway. I understand that prompt steps are being taken to remove that block, and that the normal mail service with France may be expected to be resumed very soon. But should the obstruction unfortunately continue, the Post Office is devising with the contractors for the Channel Service means for preventing, as far as possible, delays in the mail service.

  SITTINGS AND ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE EASTER RECESS.
  MR. MARK STEWART: Can the First Lord of the Treasury inform the House on what day, and for how long, the House will adjourn for the Easter holidays?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It is not in my power positively to inform the House when I shall be able to ask it to rise for the Easter holidays; but I hope,

  1311
  if the course of Business should permit, that we may adjourn after a Morning Sitting on Tuesday, the 27th instant, until, I think, the Thursday in the following week.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887— SECTION 30.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which he had given private Notice, Whether he could lay on the Table of the House, before the discussion on the arrears; question next Wednesday, any further information as to the working of the 30th section of the Land Act of last Session, especially as regards the way in which arrears had been dealt with by the County Court Judges?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Yes, Sir; that is a subject upon which I am endeavouring to collect information. As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, it rests with the clerks of the Court to supply it, and I cannot get it direct from my own officials; therefore, I cannot insure having all the information which I desire to lay before the House; but I have received information with regard to certain counties, and that, together with any other information that I am able to lay before the House, I shall be glad to produce.

  PRIVILEGE—THE NATIONAL RADICAL UNION.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I beg to claim the indulgence of the House whilst I bring before it what seems to be a Breach of the Privileges of this House. A few days ago the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) brought forward an Amendment in Committee of Supply to reduce the amount required for Special Missions. A certain number of hon. Members of this House went into the Lobby and voted with the hon. Member in favour of that reduction. The result of that has been that an Association calling itself the National Radical Union has sent a letter to the constituents of those hon. Members who voted with the hon. Member for Northampton, and it is in this letter, Sir, that I think the Breach of Privilege lies. That, Sir, is a question which you will be able to decide, I will read the
  1312
  letter, and then, with the permission of the House, make a few remarks upon it. It is issued from Birmingham, and is as follows:—
  "National Radical Union, Corporation
  "Street, Birmingham,
  "March 5, 1888.
  "Dear Sir,—I desire to impress upon you the importance of making the most in your columns of the fact that Mr. Peter Esslemont, M.P., supported Mr. Labouchere and Mr. T. P. O'Connor in their unpatriotic and mean attempt to mar the international amity between two kindred nations by refusing to grant the unusually small Vote for defraying the expense of Mr. Chamberlain's Mission to the United States."—
  Now, Sir, the sting of the letter lies in the tail—
  "This will tell very much against Gladstonian Secessionists if well worked in your columns."
  I am very sorry to say that a similar letter has been sent to my constituency, and I ask whether you do not consider this a Breach of the Privileges of this House?
  [No reply.]
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I beg to move that this letter is a Breach of the Privileges of this House.
  MR. SPEAKER: It seems to me that there is not even a primâ facie case of Privilege.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [12th March], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.

  ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM OF THE ADMIRALTY.—RESOLUTION.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, that the remarks he was addressing to the House were stopped by the clock on Monday, He did not, however, propose to trespass at any length upon the further indulgence of the House; he was quite sensible of the kindness which he had already received. He was endeavouring when interrupted in his argument to press on the Govern-

    1313
    ment the importance of widening the scope of their inquiry into the system of organization of the Army and Navy, and he was attempting to show how it might be included in the ordinary way in a Report on the naval defence of the Empire; its sufficiency and efficiency. In support of that argument he had ventured to quote from the proceedings of the Colonial Conference, and he had read an extract from a letter written by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), in September, 1884, in which the case was very powerfully put. He (Admiral Field) came now to a second branch of the subject in reference to which he had placed a formal Motion on the Paper, but which, he understood, the Forms of the House would not allow to be put; but before doing so he desired to refer to the want of dock accommodation in Bombay—a question which he had brought before the House in 1886, and again last year, having been struck by the fact that it had been necessary to send from India a flagship in order that she might be repaired at Malta. He looked at it as a public scandal to the Indian Empire, which this country had to guard, that we should not have dock accommodation for a first-class iron-clad at Bombay. Last year they were told that a dock was to be made, and he believed that Estimates had been furnished to the Government which showed that some £80,000 or £100,000 were all that was required to provide the necessary accommodation; but the Indian and Imperial Government had been fighting with each other as to which was to pay the cost. They were told now that the dock was to be made, and he should like to hear from the Admiralty what progress had been made in providing the necessary accommodation. He now came to the second branch of the subject—namely, the Admiralty Administration. The attention of the House and of the whole country had been called to that subject in connection with the resignation of the noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford). He had no right to speak for the noble and gallant Lord, who made an admirable speech the other day; but it was not difficult for naval men to read and look into the motives of the noble
    1314
    and gallant Lord's resignation. They were highly honourable to the noble and gallant Lord himself; but he (Admiral Field) was satisfied that the resignation was not sent in simply on the question of the salaries of the officers of the Intellience Department. He thought the reasons for it were much deeper and wider and more subtle, and he asked the attention of the House while he ventured to explain the views which naval men took of this important question of naval administration. He thought the Orders in Council, which were alluded to in the Motion standing in his name, were at the root of the whole matter. They found no great complaints made about the administration of the Admiralty up to the year 1869; but ever since 1869 there had been continual complaints. As a matter of fact, responsible and distinguished men were appointed to the Admiralty on account of their real ability, and yet they had virtually no power whatever. He did not propose to weary the House by reflecting on the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), who was the first Minister of the Crown to introduce a great change; but it was necessary to refer to the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. The Admiralty was one of the oldest institutions in the country, and it ought to be respected on account of its antiquity. The Office of Lord High Admiral was an ancient one; it was vested in the Crown; but it was a power which could be, and had been, delegated from time to time. On a few occasions nominees of the Crown had been called Lord High Admiral; but in the Reign of William and Mary the House of Commons—jealous of the power of the Lord High Admiral—desired that it should be put in Commission, and the Act then passed had remained on the Statute Book up to the present time. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) had led the House to believe that naval men were now going in for what was called "supremacy" at the Board. That was altogether wrong; no such feeling existed on the part of naval men. All they wished was that the Naval Members of the Board should have real power and responsibility as defined by Act of Parliament. They were Com-

    1315
    missioners co-equal by law, but by the usage of centuries that co-equal power had ceased to exist. He maintained that their rights still exist by law, and that they ought not to be ignored by the Ministers of the Crown. The Orders in Council from 1869 and 1872 down to 1882 were all unnecessary and ulra vires; therefore they were illegal and ought to be withdrawn. He had discussed the question with eminent lawyers, and they all went with him in maintaining that nothing could alter the Act of Parliament, and that no Order in Council could take away from or add to the power which was conferred by Act of Parliament. He therefore maintained that these Orders in Council ought never to have been issued, and that they ought to be withdrawn. It was not that naval men had any notion of calling in question the supremacy of the First Lord. The First Lords of the Admiralty had always worked harmoniously with their Colleagues, and, on their part, no naval men he had ever heard of had disputed or sought in any way to undermine or interfere with the authority or with the supremacy of the First Lord, who must be a Cabinet Minister, and it was simply trailing a red herring across the scent to pretend that naval men had any such idea. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh thought all he did was right. What was wanted was strong men at the head of the Admiralty; but in regard to the right hon. Gentleman he could not help thinking that, although he proved himself politically strong, he was a very self-willed man. He hoped they might never meet with as strong a man again, but the experience and, training of the right hon. Gentleman had been obtained in the Colonies, where no respect was entertained for traditions. Naval men believed that that fact accounted for the exercise of the supreme will of the right hon. Gentleman in having these Orders in Council issued. He would quote for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman the opinion of the Legal Adviser of the Admiralty of that time, Mr. Bristow, in examination by the Chairman of the Committee of the House of Lords which inquired into the subject. Mr. Bristow—the Solicitor to the Admiralty—was asked by the Duke of Somerset—
    1316
    "Is it not the fact that the Order in Council of 1869 is not only at variance with the Patent issued subsequently, but it is also at variance with the Common Law, upon which the usuage of the Admiralty rests?—I am inclined to think that it is."
    Mr. Bristow also said that subsequent Patents would annul the Order in Council. It amounted to this—that the Orders in Council, although thus annulled, had been acted on as if legal; and it was only in the House of Commons that the question could be raised, and the legality of these Orders in Council properly tested. It was difficult to expect a Minister, when he succeeded to the position of First Lord of the Admiralty, and found an Order in Council in existence which gave him supremacy, and converted his Council into mere subordinates, would get rid of that Order. He had shown that the Orders in Council were illegal; that the Naval Lords were not responsible to the First Lord; but that they were responsible under an Act of Parliament to the Board, the First Lord being responsible to the House. He, therefore, contended that the Orders in Council were unnecessary; that they were a burning grievance in the eyes of naval men; and that they ought to be withdrawn. In 1873 the late Lord Beacons-field delivered a speech in Glasgow at a time when the Navy were smarting from the rule of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh. Lord Beaconsfield said—
    "Ask the Naval Profession whether they have not been worried. During the course of the present Government, the whole administrative system of the Admiralty, the Council which had always great influence in the management of the Navy, and the peculiar office of the Secretary were all swept away; and in spite I may say, of the nightly warnings of a right hon. Friend, who is now lost to us all and his country, the ablest Minister of the Admiralty during the present reign—notwithstanding his nightly warnings that they were so conducting the administration of the Navy that they would probably fall into some disaster, his remonstrances were in vain, till soon the most costly vessel of the State, the Captain, was lost, and the perilous voyage of the Megœra had been made, when the country would stand it no longer. They rescinded the whole of this worrying arrangement, and appointed a now First Lord to re-establish the whole system."
    Lord Beaconsfield was wrong. He thought it had been done, but it was not done. Lord Beaconsfield was a high authority in favour of the naval

    1317
    view, and surely when a man of such eminence spoke in that sense it was a condemnation of the system, and the system itself ought to be modified out of respect for the high authority which condemned it. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) succeeded the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh as First Lord of the Admiralty, and modified the Order in Council by striking out the most hateful part of it. The right hon. Gentleman made the Naval Lords Heads of Departments, but still left them responsible to the First Lord. That was his point. His contention was that they ought to get rid of the Orders in Council. Naval men had always respected the First Lord of the Admiralty, and had always submitted to his veto on all points submitted to the Board, in consideration for the position he occupied; but they maintained that the First Lord had no right to abolish the Board. Of course, he could do anything with a majority at his back, and that was why the Orders in Council had been carried out. He could quote argument after argument in support of his view. It was held by the Duke of Somerset, by Sir James Graham, and by other eminent Ministers who were examined before the Committees of 1861 and 1871. There was no difference of opinion among them. Sir James Graham and the Duke of Somerset both agreed that the First Lord must be supreme, and they both laid down clearly that it was the duty of each Naval Lord to support the decisions of the First Lord. Naval men appealed to the Front Bench as the exponents and guardians par excellence of Conservative principles, and one of the cherished Conservative principles was a respect for the law as long as it was the law. They said that it was their duty to see that the law was respected so long as it was on the Statute Book. It ought to be respected, and so long as a Minister, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty or any other Minister, was responsible, the law ought to be respected without issuing Orders in Council, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh did, in an evil moment, his example having been followed, unfortunately, ever since. His view was that they ought to transact the business of the Board of Admiralty with a full sense of the authority of
    1318
    every Member of the Board, while acknowledging the supremacy of the First Lord. The Duke of Somerset, in the Report of the Committee of 1871, said—
    "The Committee have failed to discover the advantage of fixing the precise duties of the several Lords by 'Order in Council.' A Minute of the Board would have facilitated some re-adjustment of the business according to the special qualifications of the Lords or ever-varying demands of the Public Service. The Order in Council, 1869, has so far disabled the Board that it is no longer fitted for consultations or for the review of naval affairs. The ancient Patent of Admiralty, qualified by long usage, had established an equality of the Lords for the purpose of suggestion and consultation, combined with the absolute supremacy of the First Lord for the purposes of action."
    The naval men accepted that definition. They were perfectly loyal to the supremacy of the First Lord, and the principle he contended for; but they maintained that the Naval Board should meet as it had done for centuries, although, by the usage of centuries, the supremacy of the First Lord must be acknowledged. The Duke of Somerset goes on to say—
    "The Board of Admiralty was constituted to bring around him—the First Lord—men of high standing and long experience in the Navy. The maintenance of the Navy in a state of continued preparation and efficiency depends on innumerable details, which neither the examination of the Estimates nor the vigilance of Parliament can secure. The First Lord can only be acquainted with such matters through daily intercourse and friendly communication with officers of the Navy. It is, therefore, of primary importance that the Naval Service should be adequately represented in the Department which regulates naval officers."
    Naval men accepted that view also, and all they asked was that the First Lord should accept it. They were only fighting for what the law laid down. Some persons who had discussed the question, had not taken the trouble to study and read the evidence of the Duke of Somerset and Sir James Graham before these two Committees. If they would only read the evidence he was sure they would come to the conclusion that the Act of Parliament ought to be upheld. It might be said by some that if the system was as he had represented it, it ought to be altered; but he maintained that those who took that view were trifling with an Act of Parliament, and were not the proper guardians of the Service Sir James Graham was examined in reference to the Patent, and he said—

    1319
    "I have made it my study to make myself master of the origin of power exercised by the First Lord at the Board, the constitution of the Board, its power, and its legal origin; the more I have investigated the matter the more I am satisfied that, like the Common Law in aid of the Statute Law, the power exercised by the Board of Admiralty and the different members of it rests more upon usage than upon the Patents—uninterrupted usage from a very curly period; and, my conviction being such as I have stated, I am led to view with increased apprehension any great change that will supersede that usage and prescription. I am of opinion that there would he great danger in attempting to touch the Patent. I infinitely prefer, therefore, on the whole, the maintenance of existing Patents, in concurrence with the established usage centuries."
    At the present moment the Board of Admiralty were guardians of the foreshore above low water mark of all the creeks and islets round the coast, and possessed rights in regard to derelict ships, &c. There were, therefore, numerous questions which could not possibly be dealt with in an amended Act, and no lawyer would be rash enough to meddle with the Act of Parliament, or the Patent, because one portion of the Act was unsatisfactory. If the Act and the Patents were to be interfered with, it would be necessary to come back to the rights of the Crown, where all power still resided. Under these circumstances, all persons were agreed that the Act could not be meddled with or the Patents altered without danger, but that what had been the custom for centuries should continue to prevail, and that the naval responsibility of the Admiralty should be made real and effective by sweeping away Orders in Council. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech delivered in that House, had pointed, out that the Naval Members of the Board should have responsibility. They ought, however, as they were conversant with the Naval Profession, to be made more responsible, occupying the position which was laid down for them in the Act of Parliament, which made them responsible not only to the First Lord, but to the country. In 1872 the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) said—
    "Allusion has been made to frequent changes in the person of the First Lord, and consequent want of experience of the special duties with which he was charged. That was rather an argument in favour of than against a Board, because, if the First Lord was without special knowledge,
    1320
    he must look for high professional advice, and ascertain what were the opinions of the Profession. The Service liked to know that side by side with a responsible Minister there were others quite conversant with the details of the Profession, and who would give advice under a sense of responsibility,"
    Lord Brassey also stated, in a speech delivered in that House in 1872—
    "There is a tendency to neglect the efficiency of the Service, and to regard economy in Naval Administration exhibited in too many instances by the Board of Admiralty. Another error was making the Department depend too exclusively upon the First Lord, which was the more objectionable on account of the frequent changes which our Parliamentary system involved, and under such a plan it was impossible that our affairs could prosper."
    He would give a case in order to show how valuable the powers of the Board were, and how necessary it was to retain those powers intact. Sir James Graham cited a remarkable and historical case to show how elastic the powers of the Board were to meet great and unforeseen emergencies which no single Minister could do. Mr. Croker was ordered by the Board to go with Lord Castlereagh to Paris as Foreign Minister—after Waterloo—to confer with the Duke of Wellington. Mr. Croker was told to act on orders from the Foreign Minister in Paris, and consequently wrote to Sir H. Hotham on the Coast of France to intercept Napoleon and bring him to England, which was done in the Bellerophon. Now, that could not have been done in any other manner than by the Board of Admiralty, acting, as they did, through their organ the Secretary. The most objectionable form of administration was attempted in 1828 under the Duke of Clarence, who was Lord High Admiral, but the system utterly broke down. The Duke of Wellington had to abolish it and to revive the old Board. Under these circumstances, he asked the First Lord to have some respect for the sentiments of the Navy, and to be prepared to meet the wishes of naval men. According to Sir George Willes, the Admiralty as a Court of Appeal had ceased to exist. Then, again, the Naval Secretary had been abolished, much to the regret of the Naval Service. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty, in his speech the other day, made use of some observations to which exception must be

    1321
    taken. Speaking at Ealing the noble Lord said—
    "I re-arranged the business (the Naval Lords) the Executive Heads of their Departments, and I endeavoured to be accessible to them whenever they wanted to see me, and I established the practice of allowing any individual Member of the Board to record a protest against action collectively taken of which he disapproved, but which was not of such importance as to justify his retiring firm office. Under no other form of administration will the Navy be as much governed by naval men. The Naval Lords are my Colleagues and not assistants—they act as my primary and not as secondary advisers. I believe it to be for the interests of the Navy that this system should continue, but it would become at once unworkable and impossible if the supreme authority of the Civil Head is circumvented, undermined, or overthrown."
    There was no desire on the part of any naval man to circumvent, undermine, or overthrow the supreme authority of the Civil Head of the Board, and they were prepared to repudiate the charge. Their contention was that if the Orders in Council were abolished the authority of the Naval Board under the Statute would revive, and they asked that the Naval Lords should be invited to record their opinions and present a Report simultaneously with the Memorandum of the First Lord. The late Secretary for War had inaugurated that system by directing his chief officer to present a Report to the House. The Naval Lords of the Admiralty should make a similar Report in reference to their respective branches, and all such Reports should be laid before the House. Hitherto First Lords of the Admiralty had "burked" naval opinion, and only gave what happened to suit them. If the country had known what the state of the Service was at the time of the Russian scare considerable alarm would have been felt. He admitted that the Government had done their best now to remove the defects which existed then. A former First Lord of the Admiralty told Parliament in 1884 that he would not know what to do with £3,000,000 sterling extra; a very short time afterwards he came to Parliament to ask for a grant of £5,000,000. What naval men wanted was that Parliament and the country should know what our defects were, and that Parliament should insist upon a remedy being, applied. Hitherto the Admiralty had kept back what it pleased, and only told the House what they deemed proper, no
    1322
    doubt with the object of making the Estimates popular. In. 1844 Sir William Bowles wrote a letter to Lord Haddington, the then First Lord of the Admiralty, on the defenceless condition of the country so far as naval preparations were concerned. He said that at that time there was an actual conspiracy among certain French officers to seize the British Fleet in the Mediterranean. Sir Cooper Key only last month wrote these words—
    "I also concur in Lord Charles Beresford's view, that disaster must result if the unanimous opinion of the Naval Members of the Board is overruled. I have never known this to be the case."
    What was absolutely necessary was that the opinion of Naval Lords should be made known, and not overruled, as it was overruled, in the Council Chamber. Surely the country only wanted to know the truth. Very often if the truth were known a great deal of unnecessary expense would be saved. Sir George Elliott, in a letter to The Times the other day, suggested—
    "That a printed Report of the opinions of the Naval Lords be laid before Parliament with the Estimates, so that the country may no longer be kept in ignorance of the real state of the Navy and the danger of an unprepared state for war. The position of the First Lord will be greatly strengthened in the Cabinet when his Estimates are accompanied by the independent Reports of the Naval Lords, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows they will be laid before Parliament."
    Sir Spencer Robinson, who was for many years at the Admiralty as Controller, said also in a letter to The Times in 1885—
    "If each head of a Division of Admiralty were, as I have often advocated, obliged to make an Annual Report to be laid on the Table of the House of Commons with the Navy Estimates, the responsibility of each head of the separate Divisions of the Admiralty would be distinctly engaged bf fore the public. An epitome of what these Reports should contain will be found in the Annual Report of the Secretary to the Navy annually laid before the Congress of the United States. I cannot ask for space to go into details on this subject, but it is evident that, were they made a portion of the Navy Estimates and submitted to Parliament, no Cabinet Minister could suppress a truthful statement of the condition of the Navy, or shelter himself behind the character, experience, and professional ability of his Chief N val Adviser, compelled by etiquette and complete irresponsibility, whatever may be his opinions, to heart-breaking silence."
    In other words, every naval man worth listening to held these views. He did

    1323
    not care how it was done so long as it was done, or whether it was done by the First Lord of the Admiralty making a statement to the House or by issuing a printed document. What they ought to insist upon was that the naval opinion on the state of the Navy should be made known, and not "burked" as it was now. He agreed with the noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone as to the importance of increasing the number of the Executive officials at the Board of Admiralty. It was very well known that the Controller's Department was very much overworked at the present moment. Why, then, should he not be granted a Deputy Controller? Then, again, the First Naval Lord was immensely overworked. Why not grant him extra naval assistance? The First Lord implied that if this assistance were provided, the officers Would soon wish to go to sea; but his (Admiral Field's) experience of the Service convinced him that there was plenty of naval ability at hand, and that many excellent officers who were now on the retired list would be willing to serve in a confidential manner, under a naval superior, to the great advantage of the State. The present system was one which could never work well, and he asked the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty to assist naval men in reforming it. In the first place he asked for the withdrawal of the Orders in Council which were a burning grievance, and for the restoration of the Naval Board as it formerly existed. There never would be any desire on the part of naval men to dispute the authority of the First Lord who must be responsible to Parliament. He was convinced that all would work harmoniously if his suggestions were carried out.
    MR. CHILDERS: The hon. and gallant Member has repeated almost word for word the speech which he delivered last year.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: Not a bit; not 10 lines of it.
    MR. CHILDERS: I am afraid that he has given us more, at any rate he has favoured us with a réchauffé of what he said the other day. Now, I feel very reluctant to repeat what I said in reply to the hon. and gallant Member last year, and I am, therefore, desirous of compressing my remarks into the very smallest compass. The
    1324
    hon. and gallant Admiral seems to be entirely ignorant of what took place in this House, and elsewhere, before the changes effected under the Order in Council of 1869. There had been endless debates in this House on the question of Admiralty organization. There had been a Royal Commission upon it, which had reported precisely in the sense of the Order in Council. There had also been a Committee of this House which took a very large amount of evidence on the subject and made no Report at all; and there had been in the year 1867–8, when Mr. Corry presided at the Admiralty, a Committee of this House which sat during the whole of the Session. I was a Member of it, and I drafted and carried the Report. That Committee heard a great deal of evidence, and, so far as the Controllers' Department was concerned, questions of Admiralty organization were fully gone into. When, therefore, the hon. and gallant Admiral says that there was no complaint about Admiralty organization before 1869, all I can say is that at the time the hon. and gallant Member was a Commander afloat, and, no doubt, the question did not come under his notice; but those who were then and for 10 years before Members of the House had to discuss the question over and over again, and used to hear complaints from month to month and year to year. I had the responsibility of drawing up the Report of the Select Committee of 1868; and when I was entrusted with the responsibility, as First Lord, of setting this long controversy about in the Admiralty organization, I considered it absolutely necessary to put into effect what appeared to me to be the view of Parliament, and the Order in Council was the result of the duty thus imposed upon me. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain to the hon. and gallant Admiral and to the House what the question of responsibility was which had been brought before a Royal Commission, two Select Committees, and had to be settled by the Board of Admiralty in 1868. The hon. and gallant Admiral is entirely mistaken in thinking that any new arrangements were brought in force by the Order in Council which were not entirely concurred in by the Board of Admiralty which then took office. They had the question fully

    1325
    under their consideration, and they fully accepted the terms of the Order. I will give the hon. and gallant Admiral, in as few words as possible, the reason why that Order in Council was passed. It had nothing to do with the paramount powers of the First Lord of the Admiralty. No question had ever arisen in anyone's mind, except possibly in that of Sir George Seymour, that the First Lord, as a Cabinet Minister, had absolute power. No doubt, Sir George Seymour, in giving evidence before the Committee, did object to the power of the First Lord; but, with the exception of Sir George Seymour, there never was a doubt as to the absolute power of the First Lord as a Cabinet Minister. Again, the hon. and gallant Admiral is entirely mistaken in thinking that there was at that time any right on the part of any Member of the Board to protest against a decision. There never had been such a right.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: There was originally.
    MR. CHILDERS: I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon. That was never the case, but I will not enter into a long argument upon the point. The question was raised and settled, when a Naval Lord become restive, when Sir John Pakington was First Lord of the Admiralty. I, for my part, am much in favour of Members of the Board having their names attached to important papers for which they are responsible, and I myself introduced the practice of the Estimates being signed as they now are. And now let me tell the hon. and gallant Admiral what was the effect of the Order in Council in 1869. Before 1869 it was impossible to fix upon any one of the Naval Lords the responsibility of any act. The Naval Lords were virtually in this position—I cannot tell how it was brought about, but they had occupied the position for some years—they had, in fact, come to be treated and looked upon by the country and Parliament as a small Committee of distinguished naval officers sharing the responsibility for naval, and especially professional, decisions. By the Order in Council this lax system was put an end to, the First Sea Lord was made absolutely responsible for the naval business of the country as a quasi-Commander-in-Chief, the Controller, as
    1326
    Third Lord, for all questions of shipbuilding, and the Financial Secretary for finance. Again, what the hon. and gallant Member (Admiral Mayne) had urged was to a certain extent done. For instance, there was attached to the First Naval Lord in that year a very distinguished officer, now Admiral Willes, who had the title of Chief of the Staff, and who acted as a sort of Assistant to the First Sea Lord. If Captain Willes, as he was then, had not been a sufficient Assistant to the Naval Lord, I should not have hesitated to appoint another. The main object of the Order in Council was—as I have said—to get rid of joint responsibility, and I think that I have now cleared up the point raised by the hon. and gallant Admiral. I have no wish to carry the debate further.
    CAPTAIN COLOMBsaid, he had no desire to enter into the question of the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, or to take part in the controversy between the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex (Admiral Field). This fact undoubtedly remained—that under the present system they were never able to fix responsibility upon any particular man. That was the whole case. Before offering some broad considerations to the House, he wished to congratulate the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) and the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Forwood) upon the now form of Estimates. They realized the truth of the remark of the Duke of Somerset, that the first step in economy was precision of accounts. He thought the House would now be able to see the decisions to which the Admiralty arrived, and what was being done by the Board. The Secretary to the Admiralty, in the speech upon which the hon. and gallant Admiral had commented, spoke rather captiously, and altogether unnecessarily, of the value of experts. He (Captain Colomb) was not going to follow the lead of the hon. Gentleman; but, as the hon. Gentleman was himself an export in mercantile business, he would draw his attention to the one fact that was clearly brought out by the new form of Estimates—namely, that we were spending nearly £500,000 a-year in paper, pens, and ink, and the men to use them, out of the total cost of our

    1327
    Navy. The Admiralty Office itself cost £300,000 a-year, and for six Admirals employed at the Admiralty there were 450 clerks, or about 75 apiece. Notwithstanding, the Admiralty was really deprived by the system of expert assistance. The point he wished to draw attention to was the system of administration as judged by its results. There was a passage in the First Lord's Memorandum last year in which this remarkable statement was made—that although this country had the largest Fleet in the world, there was no central organization for utilizing the Fleet on au emergency. Now, "emergency" meant war, and central organization meant Admiralty; and yet, under the existing system, there was no means, 12 months ago, of utilizing the naval force of the country; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, or anyone who had been responsible for the administration of the Admiralty, whether he was satisfied with the condition of things, which must have brought about disaster upon us if a war had unhappily broken out? The Naval Intelligence Department had been a burning question, and the circumstances arising out of it had caused the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) to resign. Everyone regretted the noble Lord's resignation and severance from the Admiralty. He (Captain Colomb) certainly did, on the broadest possible ground, because he considered it essential to the Service that the Board of Admiralty should be in direct touch with the young naval school. It was on the new school, rather than on the old, that the future of the country, as regards its naval safety, depended; and the great blot of our Admiralty system was that there were a handful of Admirals administering, and hardly any young officers coming in to learn how to perform the work of administration. There was evidence that the Admiralty itself was really averse to the creation of the Intelligence Department. It was an extraordinary thing that until 1882 we had nothing approaching a Department to collect and to utilize naval intelligence. What had been the experience of the noble Lord? He went to the Admiralty, and he had told his constituents a good many things connected with the experience he had gained; but the pith of
    1328
    it was contained in the passage in which he gave his conversation with the officials, shortly after he joined the Admiralty. He (Captain Colomb) read in The Times of 5th February the following statement:—
    "Could the saddle be placed on the right horse, it would be found that the recent doings at the Admiralty had not been initiated by the noble Lord or the Treasury, and that the real inspiration must be sought for elsewhere. It is an open secret that from its birth the Intelligence Department has encountered undisguised opposition from more quarters than one, and that there are those within the Admiralty who would gladly see it strangled altogether."
    That was a letter written by Colonel Poé to The Times,who was actually in the Naval Intelligence Department himself, and it throw some light on the working of the system as it now existed. He asked the leave of the House to draw attention to the fact that nothing which had been stated by exports, or in the Press, justified the assertion that there was any proposal to do away with Parliamentary control, and to substitute for Parliamentary control and the responsibility of a Cabinet Minister a Board of Admirals. Such a proposition was absurd. What they did assert was that, under the existing system, responsibility could not be fixed. He appealed to the First Lord to say whether that was not true, and he would give an instance which would, he thought, bring the matter to a test. In the Memorandum of the First Lord of the Admiralty of this year it was stated that delay had occurred in the delivery of the guns, and the programme of Dockyard work had been deranged and prevented from being completed owing to the delay. He (Captain Colomb) asked if the noble Lord would name or fix the blame for this delay on any individual, or say what departments and individuals were to blame? In the statement made the other night by the Secretary to the Admiralty respecting the shipbuilding policy of the Government, he informed the House that the War office had found it necessary to return to the Treasury a large sum of money which had been taken for naval ordnance last year, and. which they had been unable to spend. He wanted the noble Lord to say who was responsible under the present system for asking Parliament for money to get guns, not knowing that

    1329
    the resources of the country were unable to produce them? Did the system shield the men, and, if not, would the First Lord name them? It was, he thought, so serious a question that it ought to be raised in that House. Parliament was asked to give money in order to supply guns, and then it turned out that the country could not produce them. Everybody knew that our mercantile ports were liable to attack from armed cruisers in war. The Secretary of State for War laid down a basis of assumption upon a doctrine which he himself defined. On page 9 of his Memorandum he said—
    "The recent improvements in guns have completely altered the conditions and the power of a naval attack; and it has in consequence appeared to Her Majesty's Government that a thorough examination of the general state of our defences should no longer be delayed."
    But there was not a word in the First Lord of the Admiralty's Memorandum as to a corresponding increased power of naval defence duo to the same cause. Was it because the Government had not got, and could not got, sufficiently rapidly the guns required, and if the Navy could not get the guns required, how were the forts to get them? That was a matter which was very germane, us showing the results of the present system. They wanted to know distinctly what the policy of the country was, because one could not say whether the organization was adapted to the country's wants or not. It had now for some time been the habit of the officials of the Admiralty to use very vague phrases, and to make general statements. A statement was made the other night by the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty which exactly followed in the footsteps of the utterances of his recent Predecessors. What the country wanted to know was, if our naval forces were sufficient to secure us from attack? He and his hon. and gallant Friends asked the Admiralty officials to give them information on that point, and the noble Lord got up and said—
    "I do not know by what means you can test the relative superiority of this country as compared with other countries, except by taking the number of ships, the number of men, and the number of guns, and comparing them with the number of ships, the number of men, and the number of guns which those respective nations have."
    But that did not prove anything with regard to superiority. He (Captain
    1330
    Colomb) submitted that superiority was the power necessary to keep the enemy's battle ships in their harbours, and that to estimate its power all abstract comparisons were absolutely valueless. He did not blame the noble Lord at all, but he did blame the system. He complained that there was not a department so organized for war behind the noble Lord as would prevent the noble Lord making abstract comparisons as a standard of measurement of our safely. Now, in following that out, the noble Lord told them, and comforted the country by saying, that we had 21 battle ships in commission and reserve, that France had 16 of such ships, and that Russia had five. The noble Lord thus argued that in naval strength we were only equal to Russia and France put together; but let them take France alone. Could the 21 ships of England keep the 16 similar ships of France in French ports? It could only be done by British relative superiority in war outside the ports in which those ships were. This was not merely a question of ship for ship, because the ships which were inside did not consume coal, while the ships that were outside were consuming coal every hour and minute. There were other causes besides coaling that would necessitate their leaving their position, and therefore one could not base calculations of superiority merely on the abstract question of numbers. He asked the noble Lord to take the 16 ships of France and the 21 ships of England, and to give the House an illustration of how he supposed we could keep continuously a superior force outside during any period of war. Take the five French ports of Cherbourg, Brest, Rochefort, L'Orient, and Toulon. Were France to mass the 16 vessels in Toulon, was our policy to evacuate the Channel? If her policy was to mass her 16 vessels in an Atlantic port, was it the naval policy of this country to evacuate the Mediterranean? Suppose she distributed the 16 vessels among all her five ports, how could we keep the five ports continuously blocked with a superior force with only 21 similar ships to do it with? The whole question was not one of the number of ships we could put there, but of the number we could keep there, and that was a question of reliefs and reserves. In no case, and under no conditions, could we, on the First

    1331
    Lord's representations of the 16 and 21 ships respectively, attempt to mask the battle force of France, and have any effective reserve fleet in the Channel at all. He wished, in conclusion, to say one or two words upon principles of organization, in respect to the protection of commerce, and under two heads that must be divided—the commerce off the coasts, and the commerce on the high seas. Now, the issue of armed vessels—he meant vessels temporarily armed for purposes of attack—the issue of armed vessels from an enemy's ports was not met by blockading the war ports. All experience of recent wars showed that the mercantile ports of an enemy and neutral ports must be observed very closely, and that even then armed cruisers would slip out. He did not find in the utterances of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty any mention of the protection of our offings by arming our mercantile vessels in a suitable manner. Now, two forces, different in their natures, would attack our commerce—the improvised marauders, commissioned and turned into war-ships for that purpose, and such war cruisers of the enemy as might be at sea, or might escape from their ports. He did not believe we had to fear so very much the war cruisers of the enemy; what we had to fear were the improvised armed cruisers, commissioned for the special purpose of preying on our commerce. The First Lord of the Admiralty made use of language in his speech which very much astonished him (Captain Colomb). He would read the whole passage, because he felt it was a matter which should be commented upon. Alluding to the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford), the First Lord of the Admiralty said—
    "My noble Friend criticized the statement in which I remarked that 'when we consider the defence and protection which our commerce may require, extreme caution and reserve must be exercised,' and that ' nothing but actual experience could justify any confident prediction us to now a thoroughly effective protection can be given by any fleet' to our enormous Mercantile Marine,"
    and then he threw down this challenge to the House—
    "Will any single naval officer got up and answer how that can he done? "
    That was a very remarkable challenge for the First Lord of the Admiralty to
    1332
    make, and he (Captain Colomb) intended to comment upon it, because he thought that, by an examination of it, it would be seen that under our present system the Admiralty had not thoroughly examined even the rudiments of the question of the protection of commerce, otherwise such a challenge would never have been given by the First Lord. The First Lord then went on to say—
    "I have the advantage, as First Lord, to come in contact with many distinguished officers going out to take commands and coming home, and I find the most extraordinary diversity of opinion as to how effective protection can he given to our enormous Mercantile Marine; and if that opinion does exist, why am I to be attacked for giving expression to it in the Memorandum?"
    Now, the noble Lord surely know, or rather if they had a proper system at the Admiralty he would know, that the reason there was this great diversity of opinion among naval officers was that naval officers, under the present system, were not supplied with information as to the movements of the commerce which in war time they were to protect. They were not informed even as to the distribution of the commerce, nor of the laws and circumstances which governed its movements on the ocean. He reminded the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Forwood) that on the 8th of August last year he asked the hon. Gentleman whether the Admiralty supplied information to the Admirals and naval officers at home and abroad as to the distribution of commerce in the area entrusted to their charge for protection in case of war; and that hon. Gentleman, as he (Captain Colomb) knew he would be obliged to say, did say that such information was not supplied to naval officers. The hon. Gentleman, however, in the language he used, held out a hope that naval officers would be informed that arrangements would be made some day for informing Admirals in charge of stations what were the interests, and where were the interests, they had to protect in time of war. It was rather strange that the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty should expect that any man in the House should get up, and toll him in a few minutes how we were to arrange for the protection of a commerce on the sea amounting in value to £1,000,000,000 sterling a-year, a commerce with ramifications, varied, and very great, and yet governed by fixed laws. That was the commerce

    1333
    which the Admiralty and the Navy were responsible for, and it was not merely the commerce of this country with foreign countries. This was a complicated problem, and for this reason—there was the interchange between this country and our own Possessions; there was the interchange between this country and foreign Possessions in every sea; there was the interchange between the outlying Possessions of the Empire and foreign countries independent from that of the Mother Country; and there was the interchange of the different parts of the outlying Empire with each other. The laws of supply and demand ruled not only the direction but the volume of commerce in different parts of the ocean in different times of the year. There was an accumulation in one part of an ocean at one season of the year, and the accumulation would be found in another part of that ocean at another season of the year; and it was, he could assure the noble Lord, a matter which alarmed him more than he could say that our system had produced nothing for the protection of our enormous commerce but a challenge from the head of the Admiralty that some Member should got up and tell the Admiralty how our commerce was to be protected. He was not, as he had said, blaming the noble Lord, but was merely trying to enforce on the House and on the country the gravity of the situation. No further proof was wanted that, so far as the protection of commerce was concerned, the existing system had not produced, and did not know how to produce, an organization for war. Perhaps the most interesting and the most important part of that Memorandum was the paragraph referring to the creation of an Australasian wing of the Royal Navy. The noble Lord told them in that paragraph of the arrangements in which the Australian Colonies joined with us in increasing the naval protection of British commerce in the South Pacific Ocean. Let him draw the attention of the House to a few figures relating to the extent of our commerce. The annual value of British commerce in the South Pacific Ocean in the year was £120,000,000 sterling, and it was because there was such a vast amount of value in trade there that this increase of force had been created. But between the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean lay the
    1334
    Indian Ocean, and the annual value to the Empire of the Indian Ocean was £160,000,000 sterling—that was £40,000,000 more than the South Pacific. These values were obtained by the total export and import values of all the Empire with ports, British and foreign, within that area. Therefore, when he said that the value of the South Pacific Ocean was £120,000,000 sterling, he meant that the interchange between all British Possessions beyond the area of the South Pacific with all ports, British and foreign, in the Mouth Pacific, was in the year of the value of £120,000,000 sterling. But there was another point to be taken into account. Commerce in its transit from the Pacific to the Atlantic and from the Atlantic to the Pacific had to pass over the Indian Ocean; therefore, while the local value of the South Pacific was annually £120,000,000 sterling, and the local value of the Indian Ocean to us was £160,000,000 sterling in the year, a portion of the Pacific and Atlantic commerce passing and re-passing added to the value of the Indian Ocean. The value of the extra amount so passing through the Indian Ocean was, roughly speaking, £50,000,000 sterling a-year, so that brought the value of the Indian Ocean up to over £200,000,000 sterling a-year. He asked the attention of the House to this. We had increased our naval force in the Australasian Seas and South Pacific, because we had there a commerce of the estimated value of £120.000,000 sterling a-year, but he asked them to recollect that the Indian Ocean was worth to us over £200,000,000 sterling a-year. Now, the increasing of our naval power in the South Pacific would have the effect of keeping the hostile cruisers we feared off, but where would they go? Into the richer area of the Indian Ocean, and what were our preparations for an increased naval force in the Indian Ocean? He was sorry to say that in the same year that this measure was produced for increasing the naval force in the Australasian waters, and in the same Estimates in which provision for that increase was made, they found that there was a decrease in the contribution towards the Indian Fleet of £31,000. On page 25 of the Estimates the reason of that was given. The reason was that four vessels

    1335
    would be maintained in the Indian waters in 1888–9 in lieu of six vessels in 1887–8. He was afraid he had hardly made himself sufficiently clear to the House; but he would point out the broad fact that while we increased our forces in the South Pacific on account of having goods there annually to the value of £120,000,000 sterling, we had cut down our force in the Indian Seas where the value of our commerce, amounted to £200,000,000 sterling a-year. One word more, to come nearer home. Let them look at our naval dangers nearer home in connection with organization for war. The Secretary of State for War told them that they might assume that the mercantile ports might be attacked by naval forces, and that they must be prepared to defend them, and that they would be asked for money for forts, guns, and for submarine mines. The right hon. Gentleman made that statement on the Report of a Committee, which Report was in the hands of every Member of the House. In that Report he (Captain Colomb) had read that the defence of our ports resolved itself into two parts, the active and the passive. The active included the provision of gun-boats and, in a few cases, of iron-clads. It was proved to the Committee, so said the Report, that the effective protection of many ports was practically impossible, unless an active defence were provided. He presumed the First Lord of the Admiralty agreed with that. If so, why was he in his Memorandum so silent on the subject of active defence? Why was there not provision in the Estimates for this active defence which was essentially necessary to all ports, and without which some ports, according to the Committee, could not be protected at all? The Secretary of State for War further told them that—
    "The great change, precision, and penetration of the new types of heavy guns absolutely require that all ports likely to be subjected to their attack should possess means of keeping them at a sufficient distance."
    The distance was the range of the guns and no more, and all that we got by a passive military defence of a mercantile port without an active naval defence was that the enemy's ships would take up a position just beyond the range of our shore guns. What was the effect of this? Why, it was that ingress and
    1336
    egress to and from that port would be stopped. Until we got the offing clear, all the operations of the port were suspended. Therefore, he thought there must be something terribly wrong in our national system. In one week we had this statement made and recorded in the Secretary of State for War's Memorandum, and yet absolute silence upon it in the First Lord of the Admiralty's Memorandum this week. He said again, he did not blame the First Lord of the Admiralty, but blamed the system; he was pointing out some of the great, broad results we had from the present system, which, in his opinion, were most unsatisfactory. It was, he believed, the improvised armed marauders which would prey upon the accumulation of shipping at home, as well as in foreign waters, and the areas of the greatest accumulation in the home waters were the offings of our ports—we had no organized system to keep these offings clear. We were told that these ports in time of war might be attacked by hostile cruisers, and that we must provide against this; but we had no arrangements whatever to prevent, as the Secretary of State for War pointed out, hostile cruisers taking up their position just outside the range of the shore guns, and stopping traffic coming in and out of our ports. What, did this mean for this country, what did it mean when we remembered how we were totally dependent upon the ingress and egress of our trade? It meant this—that the system did not provide us with an organization adapted for war; it meant that we ought to begin at the beginning, and look at the necessities of the case and adapt our forces to meet those necessities. He was sorry to have detained the House so long; but it was exceedingly difficult to deal with such large questions in an intelligible way in a short space of time. In parting with the question, and before he resumed his seat, he desired to ask the House to remember that there was a continuous stream in and out of the ports, and if we had no organization for the protection and security of that stream, even from mercantile marauders improvised and armed for the purpose, much damage would be done to our commerce. What was the force and volume of that stream? It might be briefly brought home to the House in this way. The entering and

    1337
    clearing of ships at our home ports was at the rate of 21 tons per second; two ships went in. and out per minute, and therefore one could get some idea of the effect of a want of arrangement for securing free ingress and egress to this commercial stream. When they had abstract comparisons between the number of ships we had and the number of ships other countries had, lot it be borne in mind that we had duties to perform with respect to the protection of commerce which other countries had not. For instance, the sea trade of London was in value three times the total sea-borne commerce of Russia, and the London and Liverpool trade put together largely exceeded the total sea-borne trade of all France. These were grave matters, and they required consideration. He trusted the House would forgive him for prolonging the debate; he would not have done so had he not felt the circumstances to be grave. He confessed that, much as he suspected the want of organization for war before, he had never been so convinced of it as now, when he compared the Secretary of State for War's Memorandum with that of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and when he heard the First Lord of the Admiralty ask any independent Member of the House to tell him off hand how England was to defend her commerce.
    SIR CHARLES PALMERsaid, the appointment of the noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) to a position in the Admiralty was a popular one, and his resignation had been viewed with regret. He could not understand, if half of the noble and gallant Lord's statement was correct, why the noble and gallant Lord should have forsaken his guns instead of sticking to them until they had been able to introduce the reforms in the Admiralty. The noble and gallant Lord must have known when he was at the Admiralty that sweeping and important changes were being made in the administration at Whitehall and at the Dockyards. Indeed, the Memorandum of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) was one of the clearest expositions as to the state of the Navy which he could remember. It was evident from the Memorandum that there must have been
    1338
    sweeping changes made in connection with our Dockyard system as well as other parts of the administration. He observed that the reforms began in 1885. No doubt they had arisen, in a great measure, from the Report of the Committee of Experts appointed by Lord Northbrook. He wished to know, as regarded the administration at Whitehall, whether any change had been made in the powers and the responsibility of the Controller of the Navy. He had often felt that the Controller of the Navy was not suited to the administration of the Dockyard system. He was a naval officer without technical training, and, however much one might admire his talents as a naval officer, he ought not to be hold responsible for the details of shipbuilding to the First Lord of the Admiralty. Again, in his opinion, there ought to be a more direct communication and responsibility thrown on the Dockyard Chief Constructors and taken away from the Admiral Superintendents. Those who had the control and responsibility for building ships and for their repairs ought to have control over the workmen. At present they had none whatever. If a workman had misconducted himself, he usually had a reprimand and was sent back to work, the recommendation of the Superintendent of the Dockyard in the matter being wholly passed over. A large sum of money was squandered in connection with the repair of ships, and he wished to know whether the recommendation of the Committee had been carried out as to doing all the repairs in the Dockyards? No doubt the recommendations in regard to preparing designs and specifications before laying down a ship, and that when once the designs and specifications were settled the vessel should be completed without delay, had been followed. That, no doubt, had prevented and would prevent Supplementary Estimates, and it would also be the means of avoiding a great deal of friction to the overseers. The Memorandum of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty, in dealing with the shipbuilding programme, was rather hard on private contractors. He said—
    "This programme has been very nearly realized, and would have been actually carried out but for delays in the delivery of contract-built ships, the non-completion of guns by the promised dates, and the difficulties that have arisen

    1339
    in completing some of the contractors' steam trials."
    He hoped that the noble Lord would remember that private shipbuilders were the pioneers in shipbuilding and in engine building in connection with the Navy, and that it was through them that they obtained high speed and economy of engines. The House was informed that they had now arrived at more accuracy in the Estimates. He wished to know in what way it was proposed to deal with incidental charges and national charges? There was a certain proportion of wages in the shape of pensions, and he asked whether the pensions were brought into the cost of construction? If that was not so, the comparison between the cost of building ships in the Dockyards and in private yards was as fallacious and absurd as it was formerly. That pension system was not consistent with the reform of the Dockyards, and it was subversive of all discipline as regarded the men. He hoped that the day was not far distant when the Admiralty would take a strong course, and put the workmen in the Dockyards on the same footing as those in private yards. Turning to another point, he asked whether the Admiralty proposed to contract for their stores in the latter part of the year and before they knew what their shipbuilding programme would be, as they had hitherto done, in consequence of which stores were ordered that were not required, and put away and left to rot, or sold at a very small price afterwards. Again, they had been told that the staff of designers would be brought forward for gun mountings. He asked had that been accomplished, because the Navy had been dependent on private yards for these designs? With regard to the torpedo question, the First Lord of the Admiralty might attach some blame to naval experts for not having informed him before that the class of torpedo boats was unsuitable for navigation with the Fleet; and if they were condemned by seamen, as he believed they would be, he hoped that the noble Lord would utilize them, for the defence of our commercial harbours. He congratulated the noble Lord on having taken a new departure in reference to shipbuilding and having omitted the iron-clads. In that he believed the Admiralty had done right, though naval
    1340
    opinion might differ from it. Foreign Maritime Powers were acquiring fast cruisers, and vessels of high speed and capable of keeping the sea for a long time were what we wanted in order to protect our over-increasing Mercantile Marine. It was of no use talking of iron-clads in connection with our Mercantile Marine. They might do at certain stations; but what we wanted was a large fleet of fast belted cruisers to go all over the world. With a radical reform in the Dockyard system, and with the class of ships which they were now proposing to build, he believed that they would receive more for their money, and the country would be much more contented than they had hitherto been with the state of the Navy.
    SIR JOHN PULESTONsaid, that a great deal had been said as to the responsibility and the control of the Admiralty; but he thought that the country and the House would continue in the future, as in the past, to hold the First Lord of the Admiralty mainly responsible for everything that took place in the Admiralty, and for the conduct of all matters connected with the Navy. They were all agreed that it was essential that every man in the Admiralty Department, whether he be an admiral or a clerk, should have certain defined duties, and should be expected to give a strict account to the First Lord. He was sure that they were all agreed in regretting the absence from the Admiralty of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford), and in hoping that the noble Lord would soon be able to see his way to rejoin the Board. They all knew that the noble Lord was a brilliant officer of the Navy, and that he was fully acquainted with all matters concerning the Navy, and had the interests of the Service at heart. It was a matter of national regret that the noble Lord had found it necessary to resign his post. He (Sir John Puleston) admitted, however, that they could put against the disadvantage of losing the services of the noble Lord the advantage of having had a discussion in the House and elsewhere which probably they would not have had but for the noble Lord's resignation. He was fully persuaded that good would result from the very interesting and instructive discussion which had taken place. But, after all, the public would dwell more

    1341
    upon the practical question as to whether our Navy was in an efficient condition, and as to whether it was large enough to cope with all the great and growing interests of our country. He did not think it was quite sufficient to compare our Navy's tonnage with the tonnage of the Fleets of other nations. In making such a comparison they naturally took into account a large amount of tonnage which would be absolutely useless in time of war; but, assuming that the calculation was entirely admissible—which he contended it was not—he still said that was not the way in which they should dwell upon the necessities of our Navy. They should compare our Navy with the measure of our great commercial interests, which were greater than those of all the other countries put together. Our Fleet should be in proportion to those interests rather than in proportion to the Fleet of any other Power. There had also been for years past a great deal of discussion in the House upon the condition of our coaling stations. He understood that our coaling stations were still unprotected. Measures had been taken to remedy to some extent the evil which had been the subject of discussion; but, even now, if war broke out, a good deal of our effective force would be used in protecting stations which, by the adoption of a far more economical policy, could be made to protect themselves, and in this way release in times of great emergency our active forces for other and more important duties. The First Lord of the Admiralty stated that if there were any deficiency in the Navy it was not a, deficiency in money or in ships, but in guns. That was a very serious statement for the noble Lord to make. They were able to understand the gravity of the statement by recollecting what had happened in the case of the Collingwood. That vessel was to have been fitted with new guns in a few months, but it had taken two years or two years and a-half to complete the work. He would like to know whether such a question as the supply of guns could be gone into before the Committee on the Naval Estimates? If not, he presumed it could be gone into fully by the Royal Commission. It was important to know whether they were able to go into a matter of such serious consequence before the
    1342
    Committee on Naval Estimates; therefore, he trusted the First Lord would give them some information upon the subject. With reference to the economies in the Naval Estimates, he agreed that the Navy Estimates ought to be kept down to the lowest minimum consistent with the efficiency of the Service. But everyone who had spoken in the debate had urged that the Navy was not what it ought to be. Neither in size nor in quality was it adequate to any great emergency. Might he suggest that they could arrive at a means of improving and greatly enlarging the Navy without placing a burden upon the taxpayer by increasing the Naval Estimates? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) had, with great credit to himself and great advantage to the country, just promoted a scheme of converting the National Debt, under which the country would immediately save £1,500,000 sterling, and prospectively save another £1,500,000 sterling. If the right hon. Gentleman would appropriate, for the purposes of national defence, out of this saving a sum of not more than £350,000 a-year, that would be the measure of the annual charge on £10,000,000 sterling, repayable by means of a Sinking Fund in 50 years, which could be at once raised without cost to the country. He ventured to say that there was not one hon. Member of the House—and that there was no one in the country, no matter what his politics might be—who would object to such a use being made of so small a portion of the amount which was to be saved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's conversion scheme. He trusted that his noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton) would consider the suggestions worthy of some thought. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Jarrow Division of Durham (Sir Charles Palmer) had referred to the Dockyards. He did not understand whether the hon. Baronet was in favour of extinguishing the Dockyards altogether, or of making more use of them; but he rather imagined that the former plan was in the hon. Baronet's mind. The hon. Baronet referred to the pension system in the Dockyards, and remarked that the pension system was part of the cost of the National Dockyards, and ought to be taken into account in estimating the cost of the shipbuilding and other work done in the

    1343
    Dockyards. His hon. Friend failed to make a comparison between the wages paid in private shipbuilding yards and the wages paid in the Dockyards. There were times when the wages in private shipbuilding yards had beau double—they were frequently one-third more—than those paid in the Dockyards. There were many persons present, including the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Palmer) himself, who were far more competent to discuss this subject than he was; but they would admit that he (Sir John Puleston) was quite within, the mark in making the statement that the employés in private yards got far more wages than men employed in the National Dockyards. Under such circumstances, how was it that men undertook work in the Dockyards? It was simply because of the pension system. Men were willing to accept a lower rate of pay when there was a certainty of a pension or of a gratuity as they grew old. It was for this reason that the establishment of the Dockyards was one of great consequence to the Government and the country. In estimating the cost of the Dockyards, it was a mistake to suppose that the National Dockyards existed only for the building of ships. The other day it was said that the Magicienne and the Marathon had cost £140,000, whereas the sister ship the Melpomene, built in the Portsmouth Dockyard, cost £15,000 or £20,000 more. To compare the cost of ships in this way was a very delusive mode of estimating the cost of maintaining the Dockyards, because the Dockyards existed for other purposes besides the building of isolated ships. The existence of the Dockyards was a matter of national consequence, and certainly they ought never to be abolished; but better abolish them than leave them at great cost without full work, while the work was given to private yards. He regretted very much to see from the newspapers that another large discharge of men, hitherto employed in the boiler establishment at Sheerness, was contemplated, not on account of the want of work, but because, as the newspapers asserted, the work had been given to private contractors. He asserted—and he was persuaded every business man in the country would agree with him—that it was not business, at all events, and it could not be profitable finance, to allow plant and property, such
    1344
    as we had in our Dockyards, to remain idle, while work was given to private contractors. If the work could not be properly performed in the Dockyards, it was the fault of those who had the control of the Dockyards. Men in the Dockyards did their work well. No one in the Admiralty had over ventured to say that Dockyard work was not well done. There was another reason why comparisons might not be drawn between the cost of building ships in the Dockyards and in private yards. It was a fact that a very considerable number of ships built by private contractors had had, after a very short time, to be overhauled in the Dockyards. Besides, there were times when it was impossible to get work done in private yards at any reasonable price at all. It was not very long ago—not further back than the time of the Russian War—when it was very essential to have certain vessels then being built, that private yards by themselves had been unable to do the work required. What happened at that time? There was a great strike, owing to the great pressure and demand for labour, in the private building yards, and the Admiralty had to send drafts of men from the Royal Yards to Millwall to put the vessels then being built at Millwall in a sufficiently forward condition to enable them to be brought to the Dockyards to be fitted. Such a state of matters might happen again in the time of a great war, and, if we had no Royal Dockyards to fall back upon, it was quite possible to conceive that the consequences might be most disastrous. The fact was that the amount of what was called control at the Dockyards was so great, and the discharges of men had been so large, that only a very simple mathematical calculation was necessary to enable us to come to the conclusion that the supervisors and controllers would soon be greater in number than the employés. No one who had ever occupied the post of First Lord of the Admiralty was more anxious to do full justice and lo act equitably to everybody in the employ of the Department, and at the same time to do his duty to the Service itself, than the noble Lord who now occupied the position of First Lord. No man had so well mastered the difficulties of the position as the present First Lord, and he (Sir John Puleston) thanked the noble Lord for

    1345
    the courtesy he had always displayed in his dealings with what were called "Dockyard Representatives." There was no one more unwelcome to the Admiralty than a so-called "Dockyard Member." Whenever the Representative of a Dockyard constituency approached the Admiralty he was treated with the greatest disdain, though his suggestions were so reasonable that the Admiralty could scarcely refrain from adopting or considering them. The officials of the Admiralty seemed to regard their Department in the light of a close Corporation, and for that reason he seldom approached the Admiralty. A great deal had been said about the control at the Admiralty. No doubt, too much had been made of the matter, but there was certainly something in the complaint. There was an exhibition of the want of control the other day in Devonport. There was a great scare and tremendous excitement in that town because an order, signed by an official at Whitehall, had been sent down to the Controller's Office to prepare an Estimate for providing for 1,100 or more fewer men at Devonport, and this, hon. Members would note, was after the assurance had been officially, as well as privately, given by the First Lord of the Admiralty that no more discharges were contemplated, as was shown by the programme of work. He thought the First Lord's assurance was quite correct, because, judging from the amount of work to be done, there seemed to be no question that fewer men would be required. As a matter of fact, in Portsmouth they were already taking on more men. The First Lord very kindly and promptly said there was no truth in the rumour that these discharges were contemplated; but he could not have been aware of what the officials at the Admiralty were doing in the matter. The town was thrown into confusion by the rumour. The Admiral Superintendent at Devonport was appealed to at once in order to allay the excitement; but he, a man of secretive mind, refused to give any information. It was impossible, however, that such a serious order like the one he had alluded to, having, as it had, to pass through so many hands, should not leak out. He read it, as the public generally read it, in the newspapers. That did not speak very much for the control; and he thought that the sooner the First Lord of the Ad-
    1346
    miralty had a little more, rather than less, control over the Controller's Department, and every other Department of the Service, the better it would be for the Service, and everybody connected with it. He trusted that the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty would give his serious attention to the suggestion which had been made as to an alteration in the hours of labour in the Dockyards. It had been suggested that in the summer time work in the Yards should cease at 5 o'clock. By this means there would be no lessening of the hours of labour; but the change would, he thought, conduce to the well-being of all the men employed in the Yards. When the Committee stage was reached there were a few other matters to which he desired to refer, and especially as to some points of importance affecting the warrant officers, a body of men reflecting so much credit on the Service; also as to the shipwrights, whose Petitions had not been even noticed; and also the engine-room artificers, whose position now should be more compatible with the increased and increasing importance of their duties.
    MR. GOURLEYsaid, he held that the first effect of war would be to drive nearly all our commerce into neutral bottoms, and that the only remedy was an extension of the Treaty of Paris on the lines formulated by the late Mr. Marcy, who was the American Minister deputed to attend the Conference when the Declaration of Paris was signed. With reference to the speech delivered on a former occasion by the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford), he agreed that greater responsibility ought to be imposed upon the heads of the Departments at the Admiralty, provided that the responsibility of the First Lord remained the same as now. While an improvement had been made with regard to the mode of completing new ships, no improvement had been taken with regard to repairs, and the system ought to be seriously considered. At present, neither a commander nor chief engineer had the power to order on his own responsibility as much as a pound of candles. The result was that when a vessel was taken to Sheerness or elsewhere for some repair, however small, the commander or engineer must make a requisition, which was forwarded from

    1347
    Department to Department, with the result that work which could be done in 48 hours was not completed until after the lapse of 12 or 14 days. How, he asked, would that system succeed in a time of great emergency? An instance of the delay for which this system was responsible occurred only a short time ago, when the machinery of the Buzzard broke down, and when the work of repair which could have been executed in a few days was spread over a verymuch longer time—nearly three months. Work which could be done by the crew of a vessel on her return home for next to nothing often cost hundreds of pounds. Not long ago, the captain of a ship desired that some little alteration should be made in his cabin, and suggested that it could be done by his own carpenters. The suggestion, however, was not acceded to; a gang of joiners were sent on board, the cabins were pulled to pieces, and thus work which could have been, done for 5s. cost the country a very much larger sum—he (Mr. Gourley) believed £1,300. He was sorry that the Board had not taken a new departure in the matter of designs. He should like to see a Constructive Council consisting of three Naval Lords, two shipbuilders, two engineers, and the Financial Secretary, and presided over by the First Lord; and to this Council the Chief Constructor and the Chief Engineer should submit designs and costs for shipbuilding in the Navy. They should consider those designs, and when once a design had been passed, no alteration should be allowed to be made during the progress of construction; and the Chief Constructor and the Chief Engineer should be absolutely responsible for any defect which might arise in the construction of a vessel as between the original design and the final completion down to the time of the ship being commissioned. This would be a means of preventing such mistakes as had occurred in the cases of the Ajax, the Agamemnon, the Impérieuse, and others. He did not find from the Memorandum that any provision was made for exercising control over the consumption of coals and stores. Many commanders and engineers were more extravagant than others, and there ought to be a system of checking them. [The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Forwood): So there is.] He was glad to
    1348
    hear it, but there was no mention of it in the Memorandum. Every year about £20,000 was demanded for Coastguard buildings in which we now had invested £1,000,000 or £1,500,000, which represented £300 per house per man. Surely the time had come when the pruning knife might be applied to this expenditure; and it would probably be as well if half the men were kept afloat. He recognized the great reforms in Dockyard administration under the régime of the present First Lord, one result of which was that ships were now built so rapidly that they had to wait months for their guns—another matter in which reform was required. He saw no reason why we should have four Dockyards—two great Yards in full work were, he thought, enough, for their multiplication added greatly to the cost both in London and in the Yards. With fewer Yards we should diminish the expense of supervision. Why should we have four if France could do with two? It was said that when Woolwich was closed the Navy would go to the dogs; but it had not suffered from that step. Replying to the First Lord's statements regarding the comparative strength of the British and French Navies, he held that the comparative strength of Navies was to be tested by the power of guns, the speed of vessels, the armour of vessels, and coal endurance. Comparing our second-class iron-clads with those of France in these respects, he inferred that the superiority was possessed by France, because all her second-class iron-clads were armed with breech-loading guns, whilst ours were of the old muzzle-loading type.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)said, that it was time the discussion now ended, and in the hope of accelerating the time when the Speaker might leave the Chair he would answer some of the questions that had been put by hon. Members. He fully recognized the value of the testimony of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Sir Charles Palmer) as to the improvement in the Dockyards. The hon. Baronet was the head of one of the largest shipbuilding firms in the Kingdom, and his approval was all the more valuable on that account. He could assure him there was no disposition on the part of the Admiralty, as the hon.

    1349
    Member for Devonport (Sir John Puleston) seemed to think, to unduly reduce the Dockyard Establishments. They had now made arrangements by which they hoped hereafter to be able to give work permanently to certain establishments; and if it was necessary to increase the number of men at any one Dockyard, these men would be taken on for casual work, and when that work was over they would be discharged. At the same time, it was not intended to make any reduction of private work. Considering the magnitude and novelty of the work which private yards undertook in 1885, the work had been done with great rapidity; and if there were firms that, in consequence of the novelty of the requirements, had not been able to complete their contracts within the specified time, the firm of the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Palmer) was not among them, for, indeed, his firm had delivered their ships some time in advance. With regard to the number of iron-clads waiting for guns there were four so waiting, one of them being the Collingwood, which had been waiting for them since October, 1886; but it was not through any fault connected with the Department at Woolwich that the delay at occurred. There were also four bolted cruisers nearly ready for guns, and they would practically be quite ready by the time the guns were ready to be put on board. Great pressure had been brought to bear on the Admiralty to induce them to spend a large sum of money in increasing the number of torpedo boats. So far as torpedo boats were concerned, we had only sufficient to protect our fortresses at home and abroad. The hon. and gallant Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex (Admiral Field) was very anxious that the Naval Lords should be put in a better position than they now occupied. He (Lord George Hamilton) was bound to say that he could not exactly understand what the hon. and gallant Gentleman was driving at. They were told that the great principle to establish was that of individual responsibility. The Board could not be in its collective capacity a good executive machine, because responsibility could not be brought home to anyone; and the hon. and gallant Gentleman had struggled to revive the old system by which all business was done by the Board day by day, and under
    1350
    which no man was responsible. The system now was that each Naval Lord was responsible for his own Department. In regard to what had been said as to the responsibility of the Naval Lords, the executive business was transacted outside the Board, and all questions of principle and policy were discussed at the Board, which was a most useful Council for consultative purposes or for dealing with questions of policy. The Naval Lords must retain in their own hands the power of dealing with executive questions in their own Departments, and be responsible for the Departments under them. To go back to the old system would not only cause an enormous amount of delay, but would result in the Board over and over again having to reverse its decisions. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bow (Captain Colomb) referred to a certain statement in the Memorandum, in which he (Lord George Hamilton) declined to say precisely in what manner the Navy in time of war would most effectually protect commerce. That was not a question on which they could speak with confidence, because there had been no great naval war in recent years. Therefore, experience upon the subject was wanting. One thing, however, was perfectly clear—that our commerce was in the greatest danger when it passed through the land-locked seas, or where the great stream of commerce passed nearest to the land, which would afford protection to hostile cruisers; and it was, therefore, clear that it was the policy of the Government to husband their strength by having a large force in reserve at home. That was the policy which the Board pursued. They had often been attacked for not sending their first-class iron-clads to foreign waters; but there were but few iron-clads in commission on the high seas belonging to foreign nations. If they excluded the iron-clads in the European seas, there were only two belonging to Foreign Powers on the high seas on distant stations. That being so, and the policy of other nations being to concentrate their forces at home, we must do the same. The policy of the Government was opposed to any wholesale building of vessels, for if the Admiralty laid down a large number of ships at one time, so rapid was the change in design and in the development of speed

    1351
    that they would probably in 10 or 15 years be obsolete or useless. Therefore, nothing was clearer, if we were to maintain our strength continuously, than that we should year by year lay down a certain number of vessels. He was, therefore, altogether adverse to wholesale outlay; but what they believed to be absolutely necessary for the efficiency of the Navy was that the expenditure should be continuous, and kept, if possible, at the same level; but the difficulty at the present moment was not the want of ships, but of gun-producing power. The desire of the Admiralty was that ships should be built and pushed on as rapidly as possible; but it was no use putting an excessive amount of money in ships, if those ships had to wait for guns and ammunition. Last year they estimated that £1,800,000 was the minimum amount to be spent year by year to make good depreciation and waste in the Fleet; but this year they were spending £2,070,000 in shipbuilding, and £2,970,000 for depreciation, in addition to £500,000 on the Australian Squadron. Their object had been throughout, both in framing the Estimates and in establishing the depreciation fund, to insure continuity of policy, so that, whoever might be First Lord, if he attempted to diminish the amount spent in shipbuilding below that fixed for depreciation or waste, or if he chose to increase the amount, he should give his explanation to the House. By this means he thought that they would succeed in gradually, but effectually, raising the strength of the Navy to a point which, he hoped, would bring assurance and confidence to the minds of hon. Gentlemen. He was glad to inform the House that, with regard to gun mounting, they had been very successful. Only yesterday the two large 110-ton guns of the Benbow were thoroughly tried and tested with their new mountings, and the result was most satisfactory. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex that it was very important to have a Dockyard at Bombay, on the East Indian Station, capable of holding the largest iron-clad in Her Majesty's Navy. The hon. and gallant Member had, however, very much underestimated the cost. The Board were in communication with the Indian Govern-
    1352
    ment on the subject, and it appeared that the adequate enlargement of the existing docks would involve a much larger sum than that mentioned. But he quite agreed that it was essential there should be a dock on the East Indian Station which would take in any vessel in the Navy that was likely to go there for any purpose, and the hon. and gallant Member might rely upon it that they would take the necessary measures to insure that result.
    Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1) 62,400, Men and Boys.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,112,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c. to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, and the Half-Pay of Officers, which will come in course of payment during the course of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889."
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid, he wanted to have an explanation from the First Lord as to whether the Committee which sat at the Admiralty when he (Lord Charles Beresford) was there, and to which certain papers of his were submitted embodying a scheme for reducing the number of non-combatants in the Fleet, had reported? That question was one which he considered to be most important, owing to the great change in the character of our ships which had taken place of late years, and which had led to an increase in the number of non-combatants from 17 per cent to 41 per cent in some ships, and he thought some steps should be taken, not only to reduce the number of non-combatants, but to make those who remained more efficient. There were about 3,500 working idlers, as they were called, and about 3,900 excused idlers in the Navy; and when it was borne in mind that the French Fleet had only 7 per cent of non-combatants, as against our average of 22 per cent, and one-fifth more men in the ships, the question appeared to be of such importance that it must be very soon settled in a decisive way. One effect of the system was this—that in n vessel of the Thunderer

  1353
  class, for instance, the bursting of a one-pound shell in the turret might kill a whole gun's crew, and it would not be possible to replace them. The distinction between working idlers and excused idlers was one which existed in old times, and was still preserved in the Navy; the former were men who came on dock when the hands were turned up; the latter were those who did not come on deck. On board a man-of-war the working idlers consisted of the plumber, painter, armourer, cooper, shipwright, blacksmith, torpedo artificer, the crews attached to torpedoes, the lamp trimmer, &c. His view was that every one of these men could be made a fireman, if only their pay was slightly increased for doing fireman's work. The carpenter, who was of no use at all in modern ships, should be done away with; what they wanted was to have in the ships seamen, firemen, and some excused idlers, and to get rid of the working idlers altogether. By this plan there would be increased power of keeping the engines going, because there would be more men to work the fires. Then he would have one mechanical staff in the ship in place of the present two; he would put this part under one mechanical head, who should be under the chief engineer, and instead of the carpenter there should be a mechanician who should also be a warrant officer. There would then be the whole of the six rates exactly as at present in the engine-room department. His theory was that, whereas formerly there were seamen and gunners, there must now, in view of the changes which had taken place, be seamen, gunners, and engineers, and he thought that the time of every cadet who joined the Navy now should be devoted to learning in these three branches. He was aware that some brother officers differed from him, and it was thought that if his suggestions were adopted the engineers would get too much power; but that was exactly what he believed would happen if they were not adopted. Then there was another class of non-combatants that he wanted to see abolished—namely, the third-class domestics. These had crept into the Service since our ship's companies had been reduced, because in old days the second-class boys took this position, and the second-class boy was eventually drafted on to
  1354
  the fighting strength of the Fleet. This domestic class, whose pay was 1s. 1d. a-day, was of no use whatever for fighting; and his opinion was that there were plenty of men in the ships who would do that work if they had half that amount of pay given them in addition to their own. In that way there would be useful men in case the ship went into action in place of lads who, in those circumstances, were of little or of no use for anything. This was his proposal, in which, although there were, no doubt, some points open to be argued against, he thought there was a great deal of good. The point was one which he had brought forward a long time ago, and which had been referred to a Committee. He did not know what had been done in the matter; but it was one that ought to be taken up, because it came into the general question of the fighting organization of the Fleet. He maintained that it was proved to a certainty that we had really no good system of organization for war at the present moment; for if they had, all this detail with which the Committee had been dealing would have been thought out and threshed out. He did not blame his late Colleagues at all; it was the system; but these things were intimately connected with success or failure in action. He hoped the noble Lord would say whether anything was being done in the direction he had indicated, and he now begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,112,600, be granted for the said Services."—(Lord Charles Beresford.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): My noble Friend has called attention to a most important question, but, at the same time, one which is of a highly technical character. It is not one which I can deal with in the House of Commons, but it is a question which I think my noble Friend is perfectly right in raising. The introduction of machinery of all kinds, which has superseded manual labour, has largely increased the engine-room complements, and thus the number of non-combatants form a larger proportion to the crews of our vessels than was the case in former times. I am

  1355
  aware that my noble Friend has given considerable attention to this question. The last proposal which he made was of a very detailed character, and it was referred to a Committee. My noble Friend thinks that what this Committee was appointed to do could be done within the Admiralty itself, if a certain number of officers had been added to the Civil Staff. I would point out that this would cost a great deal of money, because a number of officers would have to be put on full pay; but how much more would it cost the country if these officers were to be put permanently on full pay?
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: What I meant was that if we had naval officers instead of civilians, this question could have been turned over to them, and that the naval officers' pay would be less than the civilian pay.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I do not agree with my noble Friend that in any system of organization it is possible to take away so large a portion of the working power in an office as would be required to deal with so large a question as the reduction of the non-combatant class. My noble Friend drew up a Report, and this was submitted to an Arrangement Committee. That Committee have reported, and their Report is now under consideration. I think everyone will agree that the non-combatant class could be reduced to the smallest dimensions possible; but they are two classes, one of which has to be put to small arms drill, and the other cannot be put to any training at all. The latter I think, of course, ought to be reduced to the smallest possible dimensions. But then there will be some work for the non-combatants in time of action, such as looking after ammunition and the wounded, and putting out fire caused by shell. There is a very strong opinion against reducing the number of non-combatants to the extent mentioned by the noble Lord. The executive officers are of opinion that this would diminish their authority, and I am bound to say that I think they are right in their contention. I can only say, in conclusion, that the Report is being considered by the Board of Admiralty; but there are a very large number of points to be dealt with. We shall try to come to a conclusion as soon as possible, and certainly one of the
  1356
  points which will exercise them, would be that of the noble Lord for the reduction of the non-combatants to the lowest possible figure.
  MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, that Members on that side of the House made no objection to the Vote being taken, on the understanding that any question relating to the number of men could be raised on Vote 2.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am perfectly willing to accede to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,614,903, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889," viz.:—

  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

  Great Britain:—

  £

  Royal Palaces

  5,000

  Marlborough House

  500

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  12,000

  Houses of Parliament

  6,000

  Gordon Monument

  Public Buildings

  20,000

  Admiralty, Extension of Buildings

  800

  Furniture of Public Offices

  3,000

  Revenue Department Buildings

  35,000

  County Court Buildings

  5,000

  Metropolitan Police Courts

  3,000

  Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland

  5,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  40,000

  Science and Art Department Buildings

  2,000

  British Museum Buildings

  2,000

  Edinburgh University Buildings

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  3,000

  Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade

  2,000

  Lighthouses Abroad

  1,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  1,000

  Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)

  80,000

  Metropolitan Fire Brigade

  2,500

  Disturnpiked and Main Roads (England and Wales)

  10,000

  Disturnpiked Roads (Scotland)

  5,000

  Ireland:—

  Public Buildings

  35,000

  Science and Art Buildings, Dublin

  7,000

  £

  Treasury, including Parliamentary Counsel

  10,000

  Home Office and Subordinate Departments

  15,000

  Foreign Office

  10,000

  Colonial Office

  6,000

  Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

  7,000

  Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

  20,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  3

  Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department)

  6,000

  Civil Service Commission

  9,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  9,000

  Friendly Societies, Registry

  1,500

  Land Commission for England

  2,000

  Local Government Board

  40,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  20,000

  National Debt Office

  2,500

  Patent Office

  9,000

  Paymaster General's Office

  4,500

  Public Works Loan Commission

  1,500

  Record Office

  4,000

  Registrar General's Office

  8,000

  Stationery Office and Printing

  £70,000

  Woods, Forests, &c. Office of

  6,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  8,000

  Mercantile Marine Fund, Grant in Aid

  15,000

  Secret Service

  8,000

  Scotland:—

  Secretary for Scotland

  2,000

  Exchequer and other Offices

  500

  Fishery Board

  3,000

  Lunacy Commission

  1,000

  Registrar General's Office

  1,000

  Board of Supervision

  3,000

  Ireland:—

  Lord Lieutenant's Household

  1,000

  Chief Secretary's Office

  6,500

  Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  300

  Local Government Board

  15,000

  Public Works Office

  10,000

  Record Office

  1,000

  Registrar General's Office

  3,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  4,500

  Pauper Lunatics, England

  Pauper Lunatics, Scotland

  Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

  60,000

  Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland

  3,000

  Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiency

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

  500

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland

  600

  MR. T. P. GILLsaid, he had to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland for some information with regard to the case of a man who had been dismissed from the position which he held as doctor at a dispensary in Ireland, in consequence of his having been sentenced under the Coercion Act for a speech delivered by him at meeting of the National League. Dr. Magner, the person to whom he referred, was sentenced by the Recorder of Cork. He was asked, at the time, if he would give a certain undertaking not to repeat his offence; but on his refusing to do so he was sentenced to two months' imprisonment. A letter was sent from the Local Government Board refusing to sanction the election of Dr. Magner, and a few days after the receipt of that letter he was dismissed by the Guardians from the dispensary position which he had been holding all along, the reason given that he had been committed to prison under the Crimes Act. The hardship of the case was very great indeed, because Dr. Magner was a young practitioner at the outset of his career; he was most popular in the district, as was proved by the fact that he had been elected to two dispensary positions, and he had been sent to prison
  1360
  because he proposed a resolution at a meeting which, in England or in any part of Ireland which was not proclaimed, would have been perfectly lawful. But the Government were not content with that; they had since pursued him into his professional career, and while he was in prison dismissed him from his situation. He hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would agree with him in thinking that the Government had pursued this gentleman a little too far, and that there was an element of vindictiveness in this straining on the part of the Local Government Board to inflict punishment on a man in Dr. Magner's position. He did not think it had been contemplated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to impose penalties to this extent. He thought that when a man had suffered punishment under the Act for an offence of the kind which Dr. Magner had committed it ought to be sufficient. But to ruin his professional career, to deprive him of his living, and to put a stigma upon him which would ever after prevent him from holding a similar appointment in Ireland, and one which would compel him to go beyond the British Dominions to escape from its effect, was, he thought, a most unjustifiable proceeding. Possibly that had been done because it had not come under the direct supervision of the right hon. Gentleman, and he would ask him to say that, if the facts were as he (Mr. Gill) had stated, he, for one, did not wish that Dr. Magner, having been punished, should be still further pursued by the Local Government Board.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR, IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Member for Louth has alluded to the Local Government Board as having pursued Dr. Magner with vindictiveness, with the intention of ruining his professional career. It seems to me, however, that there is no foundation at all for that charge. Dr. Magner was found guilty of an offence under the Crimes Act and sentenced to imprisonment; he appealed against the sentence, and the Judge who heard the appeal confirmed it, but gave Dr. Magner, as I understand, an opportunity of undertaking that he would not again commit the offence with which he was charged. This undertaking Dr. Magner refused to give, and

  1361
  it would therefore appear that he was not acting under any casual impulse, but had deliberately broken the law. The question arose, what action should be taken by the Local Government Board with regard to the appointment that Dr. Magner held? It has always been the practice, and, in my opinion, ought to continue to be the practice, of the Local Government Board to dismiss any of its servants who had been convicted of an offence against the law. That principle they applied to the appointment which Dr. Magner held. It appears to me that the Local Government Board simply carried out the duties laid upon them by Parliament. The hon. Gentleman says that the professional career of Dr. Magner has been ruined; I trust, however, that that will not be found to be the case. I wish to point out that the Local Government Board could not do otherwise than they have done; and, secondly, that their action is not likely to entail that professional ruin which the hon. Member for Louth seems to imagine.
  MR. J. S. O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that Dr. Magner had indulged in a persistent attempt to break the law. This gentleman was a young doctor at the outset of his professional career, and he had attended a meeting of the National League, at which he brought upon himself, by the unfortunate speech, which he made, all this punishment. He could not have had any deliberate intention of breaking the law, because at the time that was a new law in Ireland. Dr. Magner was asked to give an undertaking that he would not persist in making speeches in connection with the National League. It was, therefore, not enough for the Local Government Board to ruin Dr. Magner by depriving him of employment, but there was an intention to dishonour him. The right hon. Gentleman had said it would be no detriment to Dr. Magner in his practice that he had been deprived of his position. But there, again, the right hon. Gentleman showed his ignorance of society in Ireland, because he would otherwise know that a young doctor always sought for some permanent employment which would afford him a salary while he was working up that practice which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, attached to all eminent
  1362
  men. But Dr. Magner had had no time to work up that professional career, and attach to himself a circle of patients which would enable him to bid defiance to the action of the right hon. Gentleman, and enable him to give up his appointment. Therefore it was that this action on the part of the Local Government Board must have the effect of ruining Dr. Magner, who might have to seek in another country, where he was not so well known, for that employment of which the action of the Local Government Board, at whoso head was the right hon. Gentleman, had deprived him. One would have thought that having been punished for the offence with which he was charged, Dr. Magner might, for the full benefit of his profession, be restored to citizenship, and that he might be allowed to do what, in fact, had been permitted in the case of others who had purged themselves from their offences. But no; the Local Government Board, with the right hon. Gentleman at its head, would extend to Dr. Magner no mercy. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was pursuing a course which his Predecessors had not followed in like circumstances. He (Mr. O'Connor) remembered that under the operation of the old Coercion Act of 1881, Dr. Kenny was deprived of his appointment as physician to the Dublin Board of Guardians, but that some time afterwards he was restored to his functions; and he said that, in like manner, Dr. Magner, who had been deprived by the Local Government Board, should also be reinstated. But the right hon. Gentleman would not restore Dr. Magner to his functions or to the privileges of citizenship—he had taken such a course as would deprive him of his daily bread, not because he had committed an offence of intimidating two or three people, but because he was the political opponent of the right hon. Gentleman. He could not accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the Board had sympathy with the patients of Dr. Magner during his imprisonment. It ought to be known to the right hon. Gentleman that, pending the time during which Dr. Magner was undergoing his sentence, the Board of Guardians had appointed another physician, and were prepared to pay him if he would take a salary of them, although he was quite willing to perform the duties of Dr.

  1363
  Magner while be was in prison for nothing. This young man, not knowing the force of the law, had, by an indiscreet speech, brought himself within its meshes; he was in prison, and for five days during that time was kept on bread and water; he came out of prison emaciated, and yet this was not sufficient for the Local Government Board and the right hon. Gentleman, for he had been deprived of his livelihood, and his professional career was blasted; all the education heaped upon him by his parents had been thrown away, and ail because he had made a speech of which the right hon. Gentleman disapproved. That was the action which earned for the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, who were the promoters of the Coercion Act, the everlasting contempt of the Irish people. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this matter in the light of the precedents on which he could fall back. The case of Dr. Magner had aroused in the breasts of the people of Ireland great sympathy with the man himself, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well to reconsider his determination in this matter by the time they had an opportunity of bringing the subject again before the Committee upon the Estimates.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He had heard a good deal about Dr. Magner, although he was not personally acquainted with him. Representations had reached him to the effect that Dr. Magner was a young man of unimpeachable character, this being his first fault, but that he had been unwisely induced at a meeting of the National League to move a resolution. Dr. Magner had not, as far as he was aware, taken any part before in the National League movement, and he was not, he believed, a strong partizan, although, in common with the young men in the district, he belonged to the Party in favour of the National movement. He had been proceeded against under the Crimes Act and been punished, and certainly, to his mind, it seemed that the language used by the Judge who sentenced him did not imply that he was a very hardened sinner. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to give a final
  1364
  answer at this moment, but to consider the propriety of again allowing Dr. Magner to resume his position at the dispensary, if the statement with regard to him were found to be true. He did not put this appeal on the ground of right or on the ground of policy, but upon the principle of extending leniency to a public officer, who had been already severely punished for the commission of a first offence.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know how many offences involving two months' imprisonment the right hon. Gentleman opposite thinks ought to be committed before the Local Government Board take notice of the matter; but, as far as I know, I should only be misleading the right hon. Gentleman if I were to hold out any hope whatever that I should reconsider this case. I will examine the facts, but I do not hold out the slightest expectation that the action which the Local Government Board very reluctantly took will be reversed.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONsaid, he desired to draw attention to the fact that an appeal had been made by a prominent Member of the late Government (Mr. Childers) to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), which one would have supposed would meet with some attention. The right hon. Gentleman, in that appeal, sought to forestall the impetuous action of the Chief Secretary in saying "No" to everything of the kind that related to Ireland. He had not pressed the Chief Secretary, but immediately the right hon. Gentleman sat down they had from him his non possumus; but, in spite of that, he could assure him that the people of Ireland before then had even in a matter of this kind proved that they were not powerless, and had carried their point against the Government. They would do so in this instance, and he believed that Dr. Magner would be in his position when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not on the Ministerial Bench. The right hon. Gentleman affected not to know the name of this doctor; but it was strange to say that twice before in that House, and frequently in Irish journals, this charge had been made, and the Chief Secretary was himself present at the meeting of the Local Government Board in Dublin when Dr.

  1365
  Magner was dismissed. Under the circumstances, it was strange that the right hon. Gentleman was at a loss as to Dr. Magner's name. It would be in the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) got a month's imprisonment for inciting certain tenants to adopt the Plan of Campaign. In this case the District Inspector went to a Dr. Hays and asked him if he would prosecute the hon. Member. Dr. Hays said he was not intimidated, and that he did not see any harm in the Plan of Campaign. He (Mr. Edward Harrington) asserted that the general belief in the district in which he lived was that because Dr. Hays gave this approval of the Plan of Campaign the Local Government Board refused him the increase of salary which was warranted by all the circumstances. While this belief existed in the minds of the people, he thought something more ought to be done by Her Majesty's Ministers than to make flippant and casual utterances at the Table of the House, which were as much as to say that Irish Members were not worthy of belief. Passing to another matter, he said that in Tralee at the present time there was a Mr. M'Gillicuddy, known as the Sessional Crown Prosecutor, whose duty it was to take to a higher tribunal cases brought under the ordinary law or the exceptional law in Ireland. Against this gentleman he wished it to be understood that he made no personal charge. This gentleman and his first cousin, Mr. Morphy, held a set of offices in common—they sat at the same table. Mr. M'Gillicuddy initiated all prosecutions, from an action for the sale of United Ireland down to a prosecution for murder. Mr. Morphy, owing to the press of business now existing, assisted in these prosecutions, and virtually conducted them. One day he would be engaged in a case against a newsvendor, and the next he would be engaged in defending a Moonlighter, while his cousin, the Sessional Prosecutor, was prosecuting cases at the Petty Sessions Court.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): Why not?
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONsaid, he should rather ask why this should be. He knew that people came many miles to Mr. Morphy to get him to defend in their cases, because they believed that
  1366
  they would get off in that way. There was the case of Harrel, who was charged with murder in Cork. He should be sorry to say that the evidence against him was strong; but the Crown thought it was, and bail was refused, and he was kept in prison for some months. The man was discharged, and the belief in the County of Kerry was that he would not have been discharged were it not that the solicitor representing him at the Cork Assizes was Mr. Morphy, the first cousin of the Crown Prosecutor. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for England who asked "Why not?" should remember that these two gentlemen occupied the same rooms, and that the depositions taken by the Crown Prosecutor were before the solicitor for the defence. When confidential information came into the office of the Crown Prosecutor the ears of the defending solicitor would be opened to it also. He asked if it was decent that in the County of Kerry, where 150,000 people had been evicted since evictions commenced, these inflammatory elements should be added when an easy remedy could be found? He believed these men were as honourable as any other solicitors; he made no charge against them; but, as a Member for the county and one who had had to face charges of complicity and tacit assent to crimes committed in Ireland, he said it was his duty to call attention to these facts in order to see if a remedy could be found. This matter was notorious in the county. No one would deny that whenever a Moonlighter was taken up the first thing Mr. Morphy would do would be to see his first cousin, the Crown Prosecutor, who occupied the same rooms with himself. Would anyone say that in England, where there was absolute confidence in the administration of the law, any instance parallel to this could be found? He asked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General to say something on this subject, which certainly called for some comment.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, as an appeal had been made to him he should like to say a word or two on the story which had been laid before the Committee, a story which he had heard, before, and which had been repeated in detail on the present occasion. He thought there was nothing whatever

  1367
  in the complaint which was made as to these two gentlemen. He hoped the hon. Member opposite would not think that he was particularly attached to legal subtleties or legal etiquette in a matter of this kind. Hon. Members on that side of the House knew that in the discussion of some other matters in which they were interested, he had taken a line which he should take now if he thought it necessary for the cause of justice, without the slightest hesitation. The hon. Member, said that these two gentlemen were cousins; that one was the Crown Prosecutor, and that the other practised at the Court; that they had the same rooms. He did not know whether there was only one table in the room, but the hon. Member opposite said they used the same table; and the result was taken to be that they both saw the depositions which were to be used in the cast s in which one prosecuted and the other defended; but, of course, there was no advantage to either side in seeing the depositions. Then it was suggested that confidential communications made to the Crown. Prosecutor were handed to the cousin who was about to defend the prisoner, and that the confidential statements made on behalf of the prisoner might be handed to the Crown Prosecutor. But there was no reason to suppose that confidential communications were revealed on either side, for any personal charge was expressly disavowed, and, if so, there was no possible harm in these gentlemen occupying the same rooms. In the Temple it often happened that the counsel in the same chambers were employed on opposite sides in a case, and there was no reason to suppose that confidential matters were communicated to each other. Those were the remarks he had to make, and he should not have risen had not the hon. Member made an appeal to him.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONsaid, the great point which he wished to impress on the Committee was, that the gentleman who was first cousin to the Crown Prosecutor and used the same table was employed invariably in the prosecution of such crimes as he (Mr. Edward Harrington) had been guilty of—that was to say, offences in connection with the Press, which hon. Members on that side called frivolous prosecutions of a political
  1368
  aspect. But most usually this gentleman was employed for the defence of Moonlighters and those accused of murder. His point was not so much what might happen between these two men. He would rather hear the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or someone responsible for the administration, state what they considered to be the effect on the minds of the people who saw the same men prosecuting in a Press offence and defending in a case of murder.
  MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, the remarks he had to make were rather of a financial character, and therefore lay rather with the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) than with legal Gentlemen opposite. He thought it would be admitted by everyone that in the present circumstances of Ireland there was nothing to which the Government should address itself more than to watching the character and capacity of those who were appointed to the very responsible position of Assistant Land Commissioners. He hoped the Government would give their minds seriously to that matter. There was at the present moment very great doubt in the minds of those who were well-informed on the subject as to the qualifications of those who had been recently appointed to the position of Assistant Commissioner. He was bound to say that what had taken place was not qualified to enforce the conviction that the Government carried things with an even hand with regard to the Land Commission. He thought that officials connected with the Commission ought not to be allowed to go on political platforms. His next point was on the very curious way on which these Votes were placed on the Estimates of the year. They were asked to vote a sum of £45,912 this year for the Land Commission. Last year the original figures were £62,452, to which must be added the supplementary sum of £37,575, making for the year 1887–8 the total of £100,028. The sum of £45,912 was deducted from that in the Estimate, and the expression was used that the sum of £54,116 resulting from the subtraction was "a net decrease" to that extent as between 1887–8 and 1888–9. Of course, the £54,116 showed a decrease in the Civil Service Estimates for the year 1888–9 as compared with 1887–8, and it swelled the

  1369
  total decrease to that extent. He asked whether the £45,912 put down for 1888–9 was all that they would have to vote, or would it be followed by a large Supplementary Estimate? [Mr. JACKSON: No.] He, of course, understood that the Vote was only for the period up to 22nd August, when, in default of other arrangements, the Land Commission expired. But in these cases surely like should be compared with like, and an explanation given that the £100,000 was for 12 months, and the £45,000 only for five months. But they were not comparing like figures with like figures, and to the extent shown the apparent saving was fictitious, using that word in a sense which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would understand. He failed to understand the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) earlier in the evening. It appeared on the face of the figures that there had been a reduction in the number of Sub-Commissioners, and he ventured to say that this was not a time when such a reduction ought to be made. The grievances of the Irish occupiers of holdings were too serious and too numerous to admit of anything of that kind. There were not only proceedings under the Act of 1881, but if the Act of 1887 was to be worth anything the Courts would be full of applications, and were becoming so now as a matter of fact under the latter Act; and, therefore, so far from weakening the Land Commission, he submitted that it should be strengthened in every possible way. An answer was given the other day to the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Carew) which struck him as remarkable. The hon. Member was told that whereas the last sitting of the Land Commission in Kildare was in September the next sitting would not place before next June. This meant that the unfortunate occupiers were to pay abnormal rents without relief until that time. Meantime the action of the landlords was most significant. Even the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) had been proceeding somewhat harshly against a poor old woman; and his solicitor said he was not instructed to take any other course than he had taken—
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN)said, he begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon for interrupting him. The rent had been reduced by 60 per cent.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: The words of the Judge were—
  "Surely you will not proceed against this old woman for the rent which has been judicially reduced 60 per cent."
  The only way to stop this sort of thing was to strengthen the Land Commission, to increase the sittings of the Court and bring up the arrears of the Commission; and that was a point he would press most strongly on the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. There was another point upon which he wished to say a word or two in reference to the Land Commission. He wished to utter a clear note of warning on this question, which was looming in the distance, of Irish land purchase. The Report of the Irish Land Commission contained some very striking sentences on this subject. On page 6 of their Report for the year ending 22nd August, 1887, they remarked—
  "In the Church property branch of the Commission we have again to report that the collection of revenue has been unsatisfactory. … the arrears due at March 31, 1887, were more by £47,787 than on March 31,1887."
  They further declared the security upon which large advances of public money were being made was diminishing. Though these statements in the Report to which he referred dealt simply with the Irish Church branch of the work of the Commissioners, it applied also to the land purchase portion of their proceedings. Practically, £4,000,000 odd of public money had been advanced through the Commission; and if the process to which he drew attention went on and the security diminished in value, arrears increasing relatively to the instalments as they become duo, the prospect was very far from a cheering one. The House would have an opportunity of going more fully into this subject when the Government brought in their measure for creating a large number of peasant proprietors in Ireland. He had alluded to the matter thus early because he was one of those who were resolved resolutely et their faces against further legislative proposals in the direction of Lord Ashbourne's Act, holding, as he did, that

  1371
  the only sound policy for bringing to bear the guarantees of the State in such operations was, that they should be allied with some form of Representative Assembly in Dublin, which would command the confidence of those by whom the money was to be repaid. It seemed to him that, so far as the Government policy at the present moment went, it was a most disastrous one on these Irish agrarian matters. So far as he could understand it, the Government were not helping the operation of the Act of 1881 for a very good reason. The Prime Minister had characterized that Act as one of the two downward steps in public financial morality which had been taken during the depression of the last 10 years. They could not wonder, then, at the Government wishing more or less to paralyze that Act of 1881. He (Mr. J. E. Ellis) must respectfully protest against this policy. The Government seemed to be pursuing the same course with regard to the Act of 1887, because by delaying the sittings of the Sub-Commissioners they withheld from occupying tenants the opportunities that were promised to them by the Ministry when the Bill was passed last year. He hoped he had put his points clearly before the Secretary to the Treasury, and that some of them might be cleared up by that hon Gentleman.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, that he thought if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. E. Ellis) had looked at the Estimate he would have found it there distinctly stated that the Estimate was one of the amount required between the 1st of April and the 22nd of August, 1888. He believed it would be quite contrary to precedent and quite unusual for the Government to have made provision for a service which was not sanctioned, and he held that it was entirely in accordance with the ordinary practice of the Treasury in a case like this, where a Commission came to an end—that is to say, when an Act expired—not to have made provision for any longer period. The hon. Member, in a good-natured way, seemed to imply that he (Mr. Jackson) had taken credit for this as being an increase, and asked whether this was all the House would have to vote for the coming year. Well, it was all they would have to vote for the coming year, unless Parliament extended the Act or made some new provision. The hon.
  1372
  Member would see until that provision was made or until the present Act was extended it would be quite impossible to enter the amount of expenditure which would have to be provided for. With regard to the number of Commissioners, he (Mr. Jackson) had on a former occasion endeavoured to explain what, perhaps, the hon. Member would remember—namely, that the number taken on the Estimate for 1887–8 was the number originally provided, supplemented by the number contained in the Supplementary Estimate, and the explanation of that was very simple. He hoped he might make it clear. Towards the end of the year, or, at any rate, beyond the middle of the year, they received an application for a considerable number of additional Sub-Commissioners. At that time the number which would be required was necessarily very conjectural.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What month was that in?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he spoke on this matter subject to correction; but he was under the impression that it was in the month of August. The Government were at that time, of course, quite without experience as to the amount of work which might come before the Sub-Commissioners; but, being desirous to meet all requirements, they sanctioned the full number included in the application, and that number appeared on the Estimate for last year. As a matter of fact, however, the total number sanctioned by the Government and provided for in the Estimate was not appointed, and had not been appointed up to the present time.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Was not the money paid?
  MR. JACKSON: Certainly not.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Then how can the accounts show a saving by comparing two sums, one of which was imaginary?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he did not know that. Hon. Members would see from the Memorandum that he did not seek to take credit in any sense for any saving, but had only endeavoured to make it clear what was the cause of the decrease. When, towards the end of the year—in December last—it became his (Mr. Jackson's) duty to supervise the Estimates which were prepared for presentation to Parliament, it was part of that duty to visit Dublin and go through the Estimates generally with all the Depart-

  1373
  ments in Ireland. In conference with, the Land Commissioners, it was agreed that they should make provision for 65 Sub-Commissioners, 50 being, as he believed, the existing number, with the distinct understanding, as he had already observed, that if a further number was necessary the Government would sanction an addition, as there was no desire to delay or obstruct the business which the Sub-Commissioners were doing. He hoped he should have the approval of hon. Gentlemen in saying that, as a matter of procedure, his experience taught him that it was wise always to obtain the guidance of a little experience rather than to make too large a provision in the first place for work which might never arise.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was glad to hear this explanation from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. He thought the Government had acted very wisely in deciding that the staff of Sub-Commissioners for carrying out these Acts should not be stinted. He did not agree with, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J. E. Ellis) in thinking that the course the Government were pursuing in the matter was disastrous. He thought the Government were pursuing the right course, and that if they carried it out their conduct would be worthy of commendation. He did not say that their action was right in all its details; he thought, for instance, that what was done in regard to the revision of rents was done in a very rough way, and it still remained to be discovered by experience whether it contained the elements of success; but, speaking generally, he had always thought that the Government had adopted the right principle. Though they had grumbled at the Act of 1881, and though he thought they were unwise in throwing dirt at it, still he gathered that they had accepted it and were carrying it out. He only rose to say that he hoped the Government would carry out the system properly. He thought it utterly out of place to talk about what the Government had done being a matter of contract or breach of contract—it was a matter of State intervention for the settlement of a question existing as to the rights of two co-owners in the land—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must point out that the hon. Member is travelling very wide of the Question before the Committee.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he begged pardon—he did not understand what the subject was. He had been speaking with reference to the observations of the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. J. E. Ellis), and had fancied that he had not gone beyond those observations. However, he had said all he desired to say: He would only remark that he shared with the hon. Member great apprehension lest any largo scheme of purchase introduced by the Government should lead to difficulties and disturb the right and sound course which they were following.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) would have done wisely if he had refrained from praising the action of the Government until he had learned a little more about it. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) had a distinct recollection of the action of the hon. Member in 1881 and 1887, and he was sorry to say that that recollection was not one of gratitude to him for the part he had taken in the passage of the measures of those years. Be that as it might, he was bound to say at the present moment the hon. Member was premature in praising the Government for what they had done. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) quite agreed that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) was a candid one, and satisfactory so far as the hon. Member himself was concerned. He entirely acquitted the hon. Member of the least desire to stint the service of the Commissioners. The difference of the two Estimates had been satisfactorily explained; but, so far as the Executive of the Government of Ireland was concerned, he did not take that view. He had pressed the Government for an explanation, but had received no information as to what were the number of Sub-Commissioners appointed to carry out the Acts when the applications rose beyond the powers of the existing Commissioners. The House had not had that information, nor had they received the information which they desired to have as to who the men were. As long as they had the Land Act before them,

  1375
  he had got up and testified unfeignedly against the character of the men appointed for the administration of the Act. He had not on any occasion failed to protest against the character of the men appointed. He believed it was owing to the character of the men appointed in the past under the late Mr. Forster and the Government that succeeded him that the present agrarian crisis was due. With regard to the Commissioners who had been appointed by the present Government, he was willing to admit that they had got a severe scare owing to the fall in prices. What the Commissioners last appointed had done was clearly due to the scare which existed amongst them, for a more untrustworthy lot of gentlemen it would have been impossible to get even in the days of Mr. Forster. Mr. Forster was the man who killed the Act. It was to his Sub-Commissioners, and to the delight he took in appointing bad men, that they owed the trouble existing in Ireland at the present time. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) was quite free to admit that the action of some Commissioners appointed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite had been better; but, at the same time, he contended that these gentlemen had acted with the greatest stringency. Who were they? He would not go into the individual names and characters of the men; but he would say that if hon. Members would take the trouble to inquire who the men were, they would find that, almost without exception, they were drawn from the landlord class. However, even with regard to them, he would refrain from hasty criticism, preferring to wait another year, or perhaps to the month of July or August next, to see how they went on, before expressing a decided opinion as to their conduct. But that it was necessary that some consideration should be given to this question of the character of the Sub-Commissioners was clearly shown by circumstances which had already occurred. He would give an instance. Take the case of the action of a Sub-Commissioner upon an estate where, above all others, the Sub-Commissioner should have been most cautious, and should have done his best to avoid offending the susceptibilities of the tenantry—namely, on the Kingston estate. There the tenantry had almost unanimously adopted the Plan of Campaign,
  1376
  and at the sitting of the Court, which was very naturally crowded with the tenantry, on there being some demonstration, Mr. Doyle, the Sub-Commissioner, said to one of the barristers present—"These people are a pack of howling savages." That was a small thing of itself; but it showed the spirit which animated these men. Everything which they did in the interests of the tenantry was done grudgingly. The little technicalities, the bitter, rotten law points, which were raised from time to time, were always decided against the tenants. No doubt many of these points would be reversed on appeal; but the Sub-Commissioners knew perfectly well that the appeals could not be heard for a couple of years or so, and that, in the meantime, the tenantry would be liable to pay the full rent. And when the decision of the Sub-Commissioners on these matters of law was reversed on appeal what would happen? Why, the cases would go back to the Sub-Commissioners to be settled, and it would probably be five years before the fair rent was fixed. It was under circumstances such as these that they heard the encomiums of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy on the conduct of the Government and the Commissioners. To his (Mr. T. M. Healy's) mind, it was an appalling thing to see an hon. Member who took such a prominent part in opposing Amendments to the Land Acts brought forward by Members of the Irish Party now coming forward with his encomiums upon the action of the Executive and the Commissioners. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) thought the Government should devise some means to effect a speedy hearing of appeals on law points raised before the Sub-Commissioners. The Government might make some provision for expediting the hearing of these appeals in their Judicature Bill. At present the landlords had a great advantage in regard to one portion of the machinery of the Land Act. If a man listed a lease which could not be dismissed—a lease, say, for 99 years or for 200 years, and for domain or pasture land—the landlord could apply summarily to the Commission to have it dismissed. The landlord could always depend upon the exercise of summary jurisdiction upon a law point, whilst the tenant could not. He must say that, in his judgment, it was a most necessary reform in connec-

  1377
  tion with the administration of the Land Acts that when a tenant's fair rent application was dismissed on a law point, as scores of thorn were every day dismissed on most frivolous and abominable grounds, there should be some means of summarily determining these points. The whole momentum and machinery of the Act was directed against the tenants. There was a remarkable difference between the administration of the Crofters' Act and the administration of the Irish Land Act. He had lately noticed that under the Crofters' Act an almost analogous question with reference to the tenant's improvements to that which had arisen in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath" which had come before the Court, and in Scotland the decision was in favour of the tenant. All these eases decided in the Court of Appeal in Ireland were decided by a majority of Tories. The present Court of Appeal in that country consisted almost entirety of Tories, and by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act they were prevented from coming to the House of Lords. The Irish tenantry were, therefore, at the mercy of people who, he might say, would be only swayed by prejudices. In his opinion, there ought to be an appeal in all these matters up to the masthead, and these appeals should be speedy. The tribunal should be above suspicion of being in favour of the landlord party. It was a remarkable thing that every time in England, where appeals were heard in the House of Lords, the decisions were given in favour of the tenants. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J. E. Ellis) referred to this matter of land purchase. Now, he (Mr. T. M. Healy), at the time Lord Ashbourne's Act was passed, was to a considerable extent in favour of it; but he had now come to see that the view taken of the measure by Radical Members above the Gangway—though he had come to the decision with reluctance—had been the correct view; and he would tell the House why. They would find with regard to the £5,000,000 that they were giving away under Lord Ashbourne's Act before long that very large arrears would arise, for the reason that they were not getting the cream of the Irish tenants. They were only getting tenants whom he might describe as "bargain-driven." He desired emphatically
  1378
  to warn the Government as to the character of the tenantry purchasing under Lord Ashbourne's Act. They were getting the wastrels of the Irish tenantry. They were for the most part, notably in the case of Lord Waterford's estate, tenants who were hopelessly in arrear, and who purchased on the landlord's terms solely in order to escape eviction. They were persons who before long would most likely become a burden upon the taxpayer. He did not attach blame in this matter to the gentlemen at the head of the Land Purchase Commission. Mr. M'Carthy and Mr. Lynch had decided the point that there was no pressure, by danger of eviction, brought to boar upon the tenantry of the Marquess of Waterford—that the people had not purchased under threat; but he (Mr. T. M. Healy) was bound to say that, considering the indirect pressure brought to bear upon these gentlemen by the Under Secretary for Ireland, and men of his class, it would have been as much as their position would have been worth if they had decided these points in favour of the tenants. This, however, was a matter for the consideration of the English taxpayers, whom he warned, as one anxious for the settlement of the Irish agrarian question by purchase, that they were getting a bad bargain. He warned them that under the existing system they were not getting the good tenants, but only the bad tenants—only the men who were in arrear and who were practically broken by bad seasons. They were gutting the squeezed oranges, and the men who were able to pay rents were holding back and waiting for better terms. Before long they would see the fruit of the pressure that was being brought on the tenants. He feared that the next Administration would have to face the problem which had to be met in the case of the tithes half-a-century ago, and probably the British taxpayer would be saddled with a loss of £3,000,000 of money. For his part, when next the Government demanded another £5,000,000 to recoup the Treasury under Lord Ashbourne's Act, he should give the proposal his strongest opposition unless a clause were inserted in the measure to the effects that sales should be forbidden to tenants who were in arrear with their rent or to whom a writ of ejectment

  1379
  had been delivered within six months. They were told that there were no arrears of rent under the Land Purchase Commission. The reason of that was very simple, and it was that the instalments had not yet begun to become due. The Land Purchase Act was only passed in 1885, and practically did not come into operation until 1886, and there had not been very many instalments of purchase money due, but, by and by, they would come down like snow-flakes, and as the tenant had not been a free agent purchasing on fair terms they would have before long a very nice mess to dear up in Dublin. The fact was that the landlords were making use of the system of State advances in order to obtain an equivalent for the rack rents they had formerly been in the habit of charging, and which were now rendered impossible by the Land Acts. When the Irish Secretary was below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House he was very emphatic in the language in which he reminded the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) of what had to be done in the case of the advances made in respect of tithes over half-a-century ago. He pointed out that the amount advanced had remained a debt to the Treasury for something like 60 years, and at the end of that period the Treasury had to wipe off the whole of it as a bad debt; and, as he (Mr. T. M. Healy) had said, they might find in the future, when the Liberal Administration came into Office, that in respect of the Land Purchase Scheme they had a debt of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 to wipe off in consequence of the whole thing having been administered in favour of the landlords. With regard to another point—namely, the dismissal of cases which, came before the Sub-Commissioners, he wished to point out that to some extent there was a kind of speciousness in the answer which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) when he said that the Land Commissioners did not dismiss cases on caretakers' notices, but only adjourned them. What he always wondered at in official circles was why they were afraid of the plain truth. He did not see why because a man held an official appointment he could not look at facts as they stood It was said that
  1380
  these cases were only adjourned, and one would think by that, that what was meant was when an adjourned case came on again the tenant would be able to apply afresh; but what were the facts? He knew a tenant who had spent thousands on thousands on his holding—a tenant who at one time was in very considerable circumstances, his rent alone being £228 a-year, the value of the land £140 a-year, and the buildings on the land £21, and the man had erected all the buildings himself. He went into Court in December, and the landlord at once served him with a notice under Section 7, the man being at once turned into a caretaker. That was in the county of Louth. The contention of the Government was that in this case, as in others of a similar kind, there was not a dismissal but an adjournment; but the fact was this, that by the next time there would be a sitting of the Court in the county of Louth, this man's time for redemption would be up, and he would then be a caretaker without the right of going into Court—he would have no status at all. There was no machinery for extending the period of redemption under any of the Land Acts except under the section dealing with the case of sale. Under Section 7, if a man had a notice served, on him, he was debarred from going into Court, as the adjournment of a case amounted to dismissal. If the Commissioners did not sit again in a county whore they had held their Court until a period of two or three months had elapsed, there was no possibility of prolonging the period of redemption so as to have a case heard within the time during which a tenant could make good his claim. There had been some talk about this question of arrears. The Government had offered certain terms, and he (Mr. T. M. Healy) would deal with just one case, because the landlord who was interested happened to be a Member of the House, and would be able to defend himself. He would take the case of the widow who had bean referred to some time ago, and deal with it in an historical spirit, and without any offence to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman concerned. The landlord was the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman), and the case was this. There was a woman whoso rent was £15 8s. He would not say

  1381
  whether at one time that was or was not a fair rent, but at any rate it was reduced to £7. Now, fancy what the feelings of a person who had been paying £15 8s. a-year rent must be when reflecting on the fact that the landlord had the power, if he could not succeed in screwing this rent from him, of turning him out on the roadside—fancy what his feelings must be when he reflected on the fact that the rent which was considered a fair one by a Court of Law was only £7. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that he had only proceeded for one-half year's arrears after the reduction was effected. Well that half-year would practically be a sum of nearly £8—the amount of that half-year was more than the entire amount of the woman's present year's rent. Now this Court consisted of sworn gentlemen—
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. They are not sworn.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to know, for he has appointed them.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have appointed none of them.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, if they were not sworn he would withdraw the expression. At any rate, those nominees of the Government were supposed to be impartial, and they were appointed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Government if they were not by himself. He did not know who the Sub-Commissioners were who reduced the rent. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knew, and could produce their names.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I do not know them.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, at any rate they were the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's creatures, and the Government paid them for what they did. They were like day labourers receiving daily wages. They got three guineas a-day, and were sent round to operate on the property of the tenants. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he offered to take half-a-year's rent, and he had said that he had offered the woman a reduction of 20 per cent. Well, he (Mr. T. M. Healy) should like to know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman considered it a reasonable and a fair thing that when, after hearing evidence,
  1382
  the Court, which was not supposed to be biassed, and if it was so was certainly not in favour of the tenant, solemnly derided that the old rent should be reduced by 60 per cent, that it was becoming of a Gentleman in his position, holding as he did an Office under which he might have been supposed to have respect for law and order, and looking as he did for respect for law and order from the people of Ireland, to offer only 20 per cent reduction when the Court had allowed 60 per cent? He (Mr. T. M. Healy) submitted that there was a great discrepancy between equity and fact in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's action. This was one of the jokes of the present system. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he had appealed against the decision of the Court, but that the appeal had not come on—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I would point out that the conduct of a particular landlord cannot be called to account under any item in this Vote, and that, therefore, the hon. and learned Member's observations are irrelevant.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he would not pursue the matter; but he had merely desired to illustrate the difficulty of administering the Land Law in Ireland by referring to a particular case. If he was not relevant, he would not continue his observations. He had been dealing with the action of the Land Commissioners in the matter of caretakers' notices. In this case an appeal had been lodged—
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that if it would be in Order for him to do so, he could give a full explanation of the matter referred to by the hon. and learned Member, but the Chairman's ruling would prevent him from making a reply.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he should be delighted to hear any reply the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should have to make. The only observation he would make on the matter he would put into a concrete form. He would merely draw attention to the hardship of the Act of 1887 by showing that if an appeal was lodged, it never could come on because there was no speedy method under Section 7 by which the case of a person who was turned into a caretaker could be considered before the period within which redemption must be effected elapsed. Before the

  1383
  appeals could be heard there ceased to be anyone to appeal. He submitted, under these circumstances, that the Government ought to institute a means by which these appeals could be speedily dealt with. He contended that the speedy hearing of appeals was a matter of absolute necessity, and that, therefore, not only should the Government appoint more Sub-Commissioners, but that they ought to adopt measures for the strengthening the Court of Appeal by diverting power from the Common Law Courts to the Land Commission. Perhaps the Government would give him some information as to the course they intended to take in the matter of the renewal of appearance contained in the Land Act. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had said that it was not the practice of the Treasury to estimate for more than the period over which an Act operated; but they all knew that the Act must be ox-tended beyond the 22nd of August next, and he thought it would be a most unfortunate course to take to have no provision whatever for its continuance beyond that time. It would hardly be possible for such a course as that to be taken, and he thought they were entitled to know what the Government proposed to do in the matter. He would respectfully urge upon the Government the necessity of speed in this matter; time was of the essence of the case, as had been pointed out by Chief Justice Pallas himself. With regard to the Commissioners, they know very well that Mr. French was constantly in communication with Members of the Government such as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. He was appointed last year, having been constantly about the House and the landlord party, and they knew very well that he was put in as a landlord's man. He could realize the difficulty the Land Commissioners had in making further new appointments; but it was necessary that some new appointments should be made if the work was to go on. And now he would turn to the administration of another Act before them—namely, the Crimes Act. He was very sorry to hear what the Representative of the Irish Government had said with regard to one case which had been brought before their notice. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, whom he would not call the Chief Secretary,
  1384
  because he supposed they were now to look upon him as the Head of the Irish Local Government Board, in his statement with regard to Dr. Magner was most remarkable. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) had always thought that when a man was punished for a crime he got the full measure of his punishment at the hands of the magistrates and the Court who convicted him; but that did not seem to be the case, or, at any rate, that did not appear to be the view of Her Majesty's Government. Dr. Magner's offence was that he presided at a meeting. It was the first time in his entire career that he had done so. Now it was a very odd thing that the Government should take a firm stand with regard to this gentleman. Dr. Magner was a man of only 22 years of age, a distinguished University student. He got his M.D. before 21, and he was also an M.A. of the same University where he obtained his degree. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) could imagine a gentleman of that position, on the first time of his having to make a speech on the Laud Question and to preside over a meeting of Irish tenant farmers, not having great happiness in his choice of language, at any rate not so happy a choice as that which might be expected from the author of A Defence of Philosophic Doubt. Such a man would be right enough in the choice of his language, no doubt; but the expression for which Dr. Magner was punished with two months' imprisonment—namely, that the people had struck against rent, was an expression which Dr. Magner denied that he had ever used. Now anything more grotesque than the system of reporting employed by the Irish police could not be imagined. Let them take such a test as this. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) conceived with his great intellect and genius a great speech which it took him one hour to deliver. An Irish police reporter would condense that speech into half-a-column, although, as delivered, it would probably occupy three columns of the space of a newspaper. There they saw the genius of a police reporter as distinguished from the genius of a Gentleman like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. From his own knowledge of these Irish police reporters, to say that they could take

  1385
  down every word of a speech, was a perfect farce. They made a practice of copying a great deal from the newspapers; but in this case there was no report in the papers of the speech, for which two months' imprisonment had been meted out to Dr. Magner. But let them assume as settled that Dr. Magner deserved his punishment, what did they find? Why, that he got a sentence of two months' imprisonment, which was confirmed on appeal. Now the County Court Judge, on hearing the appeal, said he would let him off on his own recognizances if he would promise to make no more speeches; but Dr. Magner declined altogether to have his mouth shut thus ignobly. Dr. Magner got only two months' imprisonment from their own Resident Magistrate, and yet the Government, or the right hon. Gentleman, as their representative, inflicted upon this gentleman the following disability:—He fined him £200 a-year for life. Well, he (Mr. T. M. Healy) contended that that was an abominable misuse of the powers placed in the hands of the Government. The idea of a man who only got two months' imprisonment for a particular offence for which under the law he might have got six months—when the ends of justice were met by such a small term of imprisonment—being fined £200 a-year for life was abominable. That was the punishment, because they practically said to Dr. Magner that he should never occupy the position of dispensary doctor so long as he lived—or, at any rate, so long as the present Government was in Office, which, after all, might not be a very long period, which was a reflection with which Dr. Magner might possibly console himself. He (Mr. T. M. Healy), however, would ask the Government to reflect on the extensive reservoir of hatred which they were probably storing up for themselves. The Irish Members wanted, when they got Ireland, to have it as a going concern, and when the present Government did things like this they felt bound to protest against the inconvenience which was being prepared for them. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary himself had once committed the great crime of being a young man. Perhaps when he was 21 he said some things which he would not look upon with delight now, and which he would not care to have contem-
  1386
  plated as his final utterances upon the subjects with which they dealt. That was not all. If this were a bonâ fide dismissal he could understand it, but he knew it was not. He knew there were men who wanted the post. Dr. Magner had only just been made dispensary doctor, and several gentlemen connected with the Orange and landlord clique had expected to get the situation. Dr. Magner was certainly not an agitator; he was an obscure country doctor, and nobody had ever heard of him before this prosecution. The Government picked him out for prosecution and made his name known all through the country. He was only 22 years of ago, and the Government fixed this indelible disability upon him. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) contended that this was an abominable use of the powers of the Executive. They heard a great deal of Mr. Forster's Act, and, no doubt, it was a very stringent Act. But they all remembered the case of Dr. Kenny. It was greatly to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, that no sooner had Dr. Kenny's case been raised in the House of Commons, he took Mr. Forster aside and said—"We did not pass this Act with this object; we passed it for altogether different objects." Although a sealed order had n over been withdrawn before, the sealed order in the case of Dr. Kenny was withdrawn, and that gentleman was now in the enjoyment of the position of dispensary doctor of North Dublin Union. They heard a great deal, in times like these, about Civil servants making speeches and publishing pamphlets. The Government gave them full liberty to do this, and civil servants did as they pleased. The Continuity of the Irish Revolutionary Movement could be had for 3d. Civil servants gave the Nationalists of Ireland as much offence as Dr. Magner bad given the Government. There was no limit to the cases which might be tried under the Crimes Act, and yet they had Ministers saying—"We have relegated all these matters to a most fair and impartial tribunal, consisting of excellent gentlemen, paid fair salaries; these matters are entirely in their hands; the Government have no cognizance whatever of these prosecutions. The prosecutions are approved by the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Peter O'Brien),

  1387
  who has not the honour of a seat in this House; and we must let the law take its course." He respectfully submitted that, on its merits, Dr. Magner's was a fair case for the reconsideration of the Government on the point of the eternity of the punishment. It would be only a reasonable thing, if the young gentleman overstepped himself again for the Government to take notice of the fact. He claimed for Dr. Magner the same sanction the Government gave to Civil servants; he claimed that they should give him, say, Primrose limits. It was not the business of the Government in Ireland to be always fighting the people; and he did not believe any Member of the Tory Party from Ireland was prepared to say that Dr. Magner ought to be visited with perpetual punishment. He hoped the Government would say that if Dr. Magner were re-elected his re-election would not be cancelled, because otherwise they would only add to their difficulties in Ireland. The collection of poor rates was often as difficult as the collection of rent, and by the dismissal of a man like Dr. Magner, as well as by increasing the police force against the sentiment of the people, the Government would get into a sea of troubles which would very soon load to the shipwreck of their administration in Ireland. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) had intended to touch upon the case of Mr. Stoney, but he thought it was better to wait until he got the Papers promised hon. Members by the Government. He would, however, allude to the case of Mr. James Byrne. Lord Ashbourne dismissed Mr. James Byrne from the Commission of the Peace because he went from Mallow to Fermoy to take part as a magistrate of the county of Cork in the adjudication of a case in the town of Fermoy. The railway faro was only 2s. 6d., so that hon. Members could easily realize that the distance travelled by Mr. James Byrne upon this occasion was not great. It had been the practice in Ireland for county magistrates to go from one district to another within, their county. That had been the immemorial practice, and no one had ever for a moment dreamt that there was any harm in it. But the Lord Chancellor, without giving Mr. James Byrne a caution, without saying you must not do this again, dismissed him from the Commission. Was there ever such an arbitrary
  1388
  proceeding? Mr. Stoney was guilty of misappropriating public money, but he was allowed to bloom in the Commission of the Peace. Look at the disparity in the treatment of the two cases. But that was not all. About the time that Mr. James Byrne went to Fermoy, 51 magistrates crowded into the City of Cork from their own divisions to vote for a public house license for Sir George Colthurst's benefit. They heard of the publicans being the backbone of the National movement; but he maintained that in every instance in which the magistrates added another public house to the number, they did it for some corrupt motive of their own. The police protested against the licence, the rector and the parish priest of the place in which the public house was situated protested against it, and yet 59 magistrates crowded into the City of Cork to vote down the opinion of the local magistrates. Did Lord Ashbourne take action in the case of those 59 magistrates? Not a bit of it. If Lord Ashbourne would act with something like equality, with something like fairness with regard to these magistrates, not only the cause of justice but the cause of temperance would be very much advanced. If a rule could be made by which magistrates could be kept within their own Petty Sessional districts, they would find that the jobs now committed by licensing sessions—by landlords and Orange magistrates—would soon be put a stop to. Mr. James Byrne was dismissed for doing that which it was well known magistrates did every day in the week. The Government held up to them as the pink of magisterial chivalry, Mr. Cecil Roche, and other Resident Magistrates. Did the magistrates of Ireland keep to their Petty Sessional districts? No; neither did they keep to their own counties. They went from county to county, and were paid fordoing so. But because Mr. James Byrne went from Mallow to Fermoy to adjudicate upon a case, he was dismissed from the Commission of the Peace. And yet Irishmen were expected to respect the administration of the law. They did not respect the administration of the law, but despised it. The Irish Members were expected to offer up a Hosanna that the Irish Government were good enough to administer the affairs of their country. He thought it was quite pos-

  1389
  sible for the Tory Party to rule Ireland without provoking all the miserable feelings they did provoke. If they wanted to remain in Ireland, it was certainly not necessary for them to wade through so much dirt. It was of such things as he had mentioned the Irish Members complained. They were of little moment to English gentlemen, but Irishmen felt thorn keenly. Mr. James Byrne was a man of most moderate character, a man who was at one time disposed to be almost too moderate. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) did not think Mr. James Byrne was ever a member of the Laud League, or that he was ever a member of the National League. It was most unfortunate that the Government, instead of steering an even keel in Ireland, were creating in the minds of the people a conviction that they were imbued with only one spirit, and that was a spirit of inequality and exasperation.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he desired to say a word or two with reference to Mr. James Byrne, and the action of magistrates in the Irish Petty Sessional districts. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) said it was an immemorial practice for magistrates to go from one district to another—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I ought to have interfered before. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford was evidently travelling outside the Vote in assailing the action of the Lord Chancellor. There is no salary for the Lord Chancellor provided for in the Vote.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he only intended to deal with the case of Mr. James Byrne, and therefore he would not proceed.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, he thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) had a right to some answer from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour). He did not know whether it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to insult the Members who came here to speak on behalf of the Irish people, but whether that be his intention or not, it certainly was nothing less than an insult to hon. Members from Ireland to be refused an answer from
  1390
  the right hon. Gentleman when they put forward perfectly legitimate grievances in a most moderate manner. His hon. and learned Friend had spoken of the case of Dr. Magner. It was an exceedingly hard ease, and had caused the greatest possible indignation throughout the South of Ireland. It was a case in which a young professional man was deprived by, the action of the Government of his means of livelihood. £200 a-year was a great deal to Dr. Magner. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for doing, as far as he (Mr. W. Redmond) could make out, very little, received £4,500 a-year. Would he not for that sum condescend to toll them why Dr. Magner was deprived by the action of the Government of his only means of livelihood?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that perhaps he might be allowed to observe that the hon. Gentleman could not have been in the House during the whole of the discussion upon the Vote, or he would have known that he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had spoken twice.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked, if he might observe that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had kept his eyes a little more open than he was usually in the habit of doing, he would have seen he (Mr. W. Redmond) was in the House when last he spoke. It was simply because that, when the right hon. Gentleman rose to deal with the question of Dr. Magner, he did not give any justification, or even explanation, of the conduct of the Government, that he (Mr. W. Redmond) held his hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford, was entitled to some reply from the Government. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the case of Dr. Magner, he merely said that the Government had determined to adhere to their decision in depriving the gentleman of his professional occupation. But the right hon. Gentleman did not any on what grounds the Government had come to this cruel conclusion, and he did not point out in what particular manner the Government hoped to make the Irish people more satisfied with the rule of the Government, or to make the country generally more tranquil by this action in connection with Dr. Magner. His hon. and learned Friend said it

  1391
  would be quite possible for a Tory Government to rule the people of Ireland without committing so very many actions utterly repugnant to the general population of the land. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government might go through with their work without doing so much dirty work. That was, he had no doubt, to some extent true, and, as far as he was concerned, he had only to say that the action of the Government with regard to Dr. Magner, although it is painful in the last degree that a man of Dr. Magner's position should be so punished for doing absolutely nothing at all, would only have, like a great many other actions of the Government, the effect of rendering the Government's rule in Ireland absolutely impossible to be attended with any happy results whatever. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had boasted of having spoken twice to-night, though he was not usually so condescending to the Irish Members. In order that he might be relieved from a portion of the work which Chief Secretaries had always per formed for their salaries, the right hon. Gentleman had proposed that his Under Secretary should receive £1,000 a-year. Dr. Magner was deprived of his humble means of livelihood because it was alleged that on behalf of the National League he gave offence to the Government and to the supporters of the Government, and because it was alleged that his action in attending a certain meeting was calculated to produce disturbance and ill-will in the district. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was in a few days to receive a bountiful salary. Whatever Dr. Magner had done in the way of causing a breach or disturbance of the peace in the district was exceedingly little compared with the provocation the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had given by his conduct in the past. Having seceded from the Home Rule movement—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the House has passed a Rule which directs that the repetition of other person's arguments is not permissible.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, he should be exceedingly sorry unnecessarily to repeat
  1392
  any argument which he had heard, and if the Chairman would be good enough to point out the argument to which he alluded, he (Mr. W. Redmond) would avoid it. He was merely pointing out that there were plenty of people in Ireland upon the Government's side who had undoubtedly done more towards creating disturbance and ill-will than Dr. Magner had done by his action. He (Mr. W. Redmond) maintained that the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in refusing to reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford, and in refusing to hold out some hope that the punishment which had been so unfairly meted out to Dr. Magner would be mitigated, was only driving another nail into the coffin of the Tory Government in Ireland. The only other remark he had to make was with regard to the Land Commission. It had been pointed out that new Land Commissioners should be appointed in order to give effect to the Land Act of 1881, and the subsequent measures amending that Act. As the Representative of a large agricultural county he thought something more should be done than the mere appointment of additional Land Commissioners in order to expedite the business of the Commission. The whole establishment of the Land Commission should be overhauled and remodelled for whatever chance there was of doing permanent good by the Land Act of 1881 and subsequent measures amending that Act. There was no possible chance of inspiring the people with the slightest confidence in its composition unless they gave the people the impression that the Land Commissioners were men who would impartially do justice to them. Many of the men who had been appointed to fix rents had not been appointed on account of their qualifications, but simply through the old worn system of favour, begging, and place hunting. Men had tried to get positions as Sub-Commissioners for their relatives and friends merely in order that they might get some money out of the Government and not because they were qualified. He maintained that the system of appointing Land Commissioners should be thoroughly overhauled. No one should be appointed at the request of any friend of the Government, no matter how influential he might be,

  1393
  unless he was proved beyond all question to be a man capable for the position and unless be was a man who would receive the support and the confidence of the tenant farmers of the country. That was not the case at the present time. The great bulk of the Land Commissioners were men who were distinctly in touch and in sympathy, not with the masses of the people who were to be benefited by the Act, but with the landlord classes who were to be more or less injured by the Act. He had found that the greatest complaint which the tenant farmers of his own constituency and of other parts of Ireland he had visited, had to make with respect to the Land Act of 1881 was against the character of the men who were appointed. He believed that this Government or any Government who went to Ireland would be doing the best thing they could for the people and ultimately for the landlords if they appointed proper Sub-Commissioners. By doing this they would benefit the landlords because people would go into Court and have rents fixed who were now deterred from going into Court owing to the character of the Commissioners. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was not sufficiently condescending to reply to them with regard to Dr. Magner's case, he ought at least to say whether the Government had any intention of inaugurating a thorough and systematic way of appointing Commissioners under the Land Act who would really have the confidence of the people.
  MR. CLANCYsaid, he noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) had arrived, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman was not going to apply the closure for some time longer, because he desired to make a few remarks before the discussion closed. His hon. Friend had referred to the case of Dr. Magner. He was afraid that under a Standing Order he would not be allowed by the Chairman to refer to it. If he were allowed to do so, he would call attention to a fact what had not been mentioned by previous speakers. Dr. Magner held two appointments. From one of them he had been dismissed by the Local Government Board, and that was the matter which was under consideration. The second appointment was that of medical attendant to the
  1394
  police stations in his district, and after Dr. Magner's conviction and before the appeal was decided the Lord Lieutenant displayed his partizanship by dismissing this young man instanter. That would not have been so remarkable but that the Government in reference to another ease, the case of a magistrate named Barrett, who had been accused of a criminal offence, said, when the matter was brought to their notice, they had not dismissed Barrett because they were waiting the result of the appeal to the Quarter Sessions. Immediately a Nationalist doctor came on the tapis the Government forgot their fine principles and ran him to ground without waiting the result of an appeal. The case of Dr. Magner was only like many occurring in Ireland at the present time, and he rose to call attention to other cases of the same kind to illustrate the spirit in which the Government of Ireland was carried on. There was the case of the prison warder of Tullamore, who the other day was fined by the right hon. Gentleman through his subordinate £7 a-year for life, because his wife, in his absence, lighted a candle in her window in celebration of the release of Mr. William O'Brien. A more vindictive, a more little-minded, a more contemptible proceeding, he supposed, was never heard of in any civilized world; and this was done to preserve the Union—was done in the name of law and order. That was not the only case. Take the case of the hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly), who had just been convicted under the Crimes Act, and sentenced to two months' imprisonment. That did not satisfy the Government. They used their power, obtained under the Crimes Act, by a clause which was never debated in the House; they used their power to destroy the hon. Gentleman in his business, for they had endorsed upon his licence the fact of his conviction. When his licence came up next year for renewal the endorsement would be an effectual bar to his obtaining his licence again, and he would be thereby deprived of his principal means of livelihood. Then, again, there was the case of the unfortunate man Ferriter. Ferriter had been imprisoned three times within the last three months. He was imprisoned, first, for assaulting the police. But the assault was only a con-

  1395
  structive assault, for it consisted in slamming the door in the face of a policeman. The policeman did not think of making a charge for three days; but when the facts were brought to the attention of the gentlemen in Dublin Castle they wired instructions to have the man prosecuted for the offence. Ferriter was prosecuted and sentenced to a fortnight's imprisonment. Two other charges were brought against him, and he was sentenced to two other terms of imprisonment. He (Mr. Clancy) called that down right, contemptible persecution. These things were done "to preserve the Union," and to "create a friendly feeling in the minds of the people of Ireland, and give the people of Great Britain confidence in the administrators of the law." Why, these were the things which made the Union hateful. and inspired distrust in the administration of the law. These were the things that made the people of Ireland see in every administrator of the law in Ireland, not a protector of their interests, but an enemy and a partizan. Take a case reported the other day in a daily paper in Dublin. A tenant of the notorious rack renting landlady—Mrs. Maroney—was imprisoned under the Coercion Act at the very time he had an application pending in the Land Court for the fixing of a fair rent. The result was that he had to make an application at a cost of £10 10 s., in order to be represented at the Court while his case was under discussion. He (Mr. Clancy) had no hesitation in charging, from his place in this House, that between the local administrator of the law and Mrs. Maroney a conspiracy was got up for the purpose of preventing this tenant from being in Court at the hearing of his own case, or, at the best, for the purpose of having him fined £10 10 s. for daring to make an application to the Land Court. This was not the only case of the kind. There was the case of Dr. Hayes, which had already been referred to to-night. This gentleman was voted an increase of salary by the Local Authorities in his district. It was very curious that this was the first case in which the Government refused to endorse the increase of salary, and that the gentleman in this case was the one who, on the trial of Mr. Blane, M.P., declined to give evidence for the Crown to the effect that he was intimidated by the Plan of
  1396
  Campaign. He refused to say that the Plan of Campaign was a terror to him, and in that way he vindicated Mr. Blane. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in the remarks he condescended to make to the House, had said that all these things would do no harm to those people. He had said that Dr. Magner would not suffer in the general esteem of the people. That he (Mr. Clancy) considered a remarkably curious admission from the right hon. Gentleman. It was a curious confession from the Head Administrator the chief gaolor in Ireland—the head administrator of the Crimes Act—that the effect of all his persecution was to make those men popular in Ireland. He begged to call attention to that. He begged to draw the attention of Liberal Unionists to that admission—that the persecution of those people in Ireland would not injure them in the estimation of the people; and he (Mr. Clancy) sincerely hoped it would not. But no thanks to the Government for that. They had done their best to destroy the prospects of these men—to ruin them for life—and, as he had said before, what turned the whole thing into a farce was that they said they were doing this to maintain the Union and increase respect for law and order, and bind the two Nations together in tangible bonds of friendship. He passed from that to another matter. If anyone could be astonished by anything the present Government could say or do, he thought they would be astonished by the remark of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for England (Sir Edward Clarke) to-night. The hon. and learned Gentleman had interrupted the hon. and learned Member for West Kerry (Mr. Edward Harrington), when pointing out that in Tralee there was a firm of solicitors, one of whom was engaged for the Crown, and the other of whom was engaged for all the moonlighters who were accused in the county. The hon. and learned Gentleman said "Why not?" He thought it no disgrace, no indecency, that one member of a firm of solicitors should be perpetually engaged for the Crown and the other perpetually engaged for the accused; he did not think there was any probability of collusion. He, perhaps, did not know that in a recent case, one in which great suspicion attached to the accused from the first, the prisoner,

  1397
  instead of being convicted, as he certainly would have been if he had been tried in Wicklow, and had been prosecuted by another solicitor, was acquitted. He (Mr. Clancy) thought that the interruption of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the speech by which he afterwards attempted to justify it, was one of the most indecent things he over heard, either in the House or out of it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must withdraw that word.
  MR. CLANCYsaid, that if he had transgressed the Rules he apologized and withdrew, but he had thought he was justified in describing in as vigorous language as he could command, a proceeding that he thought anything but creditable to the Administration in Ireland, and which would not be tolerated in England or Scotland. This was only of apiece with the whole of the conduct of the Government in Ireland. He (Mr. Clancy) and his Friends charged partizanship on the part of the Administration. Who tried the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly) the other day? They had 72 Resident Magistrates in Ireland. They—the Government—had sent thorn from county to county to try these cases, and the body was composed of the most ignorant and most learned of men. The man who had been chosen to try the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Cork was the very magistrate whom the hon. Member had been attacking—whether justly or unjustly—for his administration of the law during the past five or six years. They had selected to try the hon. Member the man who must have in his mind an animus against him. Whether or not the Government knew it, as a matter of fact they had sent down a man to wreak his vengeance on the hon. Member. His (Mr. Clancy's) point was that justice should not only be pure, but above suspicion; and surely when they saw a man tried by a magistrate who must have been his personal enemy for years, he (Mr. Clancy) did not care whether the justice was pure or not, but he contended that suspicion necessarily attached to it, and that in the minds of the people such administration of the law was destined to disgrace and failure. He referred to Mr. Cecil Roche. It was denied the other day in the House that this man had been sent about from
  1398
  county to county, but some most extraordinary denials were sometimes made in this House. Why, this gentleman had tried cases in Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Limerick. He had been sent all over the Province of Munster. Though the Government had declined to place Returns on the Table of the House showing what magistrates had adjudicated on these cases in Ireland, he (Mr. Clancy) begged to tell them that he had personally taken an account of the matter, and was in a position to state that Mr. Cecil Roche—this trusted servant of the Castle—was entrusted with twice as many cases as any other Resident Magistrate in the country. Now he would refer to a matter which had very much affected the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman had got very indignant for having been taunted with having given instructions to the Resident Magistrates as to how they were to perform their duties under the Coercion Act. The right hon. Gentleman had affected indignation, and in some correspondence he had had on the subject that such a practice on the part of a Minister would bring impeachment in its train. Well, he (Mr. Clancy) would place in the hands of the House a simple narrative of facts, and the House would be able to judge whether this impeachment ought to lie against the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman said he had had no communication with the men who administered the Act. The right hon. Gentleman knew what The Irish Times of Dublin was. It was in the confidence of the Government. The Irish Times had representatives in the Castle. It got its items of information from day to day from the Castle straight, boasted sometimes of doing so. In leading articles and paragraphs it boasted of intimate acquaintance with the Castle officials. Well, on the 22nd of October, 1887, there appeared in the paper this announcement—
  "Colonel Turner, Captain Welch, and Mr. Cecil Roche, Resident Magistrates, who have, been in attendance upon the Chief Secretary for the past two days at the Castle, have returned to their districts."
  They were not told what passed between the Chief Secretary and the Resident Magistrates, but if nothing more had happened, it was an indecent thing for the men who administered the Coercion

  1399
  Act to be found at any time closeted with the chief promoter of all the prosecutions. Think what would happen in England if the Judges of the land were from day to day closeted with the Public Prosecutor. Think of the magistrates of London spending two days together with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Why, if they had this thing palpably going on in London, they would have the Ministers who sanctioned it hurled from power amidst the execrations of the people. Amongst other magistrates were Colonel Turner, Captain Slack, Captain Stokes, Captain Welch, Captain Butler, Mr. Burton. Of these, it might be said, that those who were only Divisional Magistrates had a right to be at the Castle, but what could be said of other magistrates like Mr. Cecil Roche, Captain Welch and Captain Butler, who had to sit and adjudicate upon cases under the Coercion Act? What did he find took place after these meetings? After those consultations with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary on October 20th, 21st and 22nd, it was recorded that on November 7th Captain Welch held a Court at Kilrush, and on November 8th Colonel Turner, a man who had no right to be there at all, sat on the Bench with the magistrates. He charged Colonel Turner with ear-wigging the Judges on the Bench, with conveying the wishes of the Government to the Magistrates who tried the cases. He had no hesitation in saying that Colonel Turner sat on the Bench to dictate to the judges the sentences they should pass. On November 10th Captain Butler held a Coercion Court, on the Saturday Messrs. Hodder and Roche held a Court at Ennis, and on the 20th carried out a similar mission at Tulla. That was to say, that the very men who were closeted with the Chief Secretary, who knew his views and wishes, these men sat afterwards in open Court, and shamelessly adjudicated on cases that must at the time have been under the cognizance of the Chief Secretary. Anything more indecent in the administration of the law he had not heard of. The Government now thought proper to make no reply, but the country would hear of these proceedings and make an adequate reply he hoped at the proper time. If the right hon. Gentleman thought he was going to get over these Votes easily without explaining in an-
  1400
  swer to these grave indictments brought against him, these plain allegations of partizanship in judicial proceedings, he was greatly mistaken. There was not one of these charges that Irish Members did not feel called upon to repeat again and again, and not intending any disrespect to the authority of the Chair, they would not be debarred by any rules from doing so.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It is with great regret that I feel obliged to intervene—
  MR. T. M. HEALY: You cannot make a speech on the Closure Motion.
  MR.W. H. SMITH: With great regret, and impelled by the exigencies of the case, I claim to move that the Question be now put.
  Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 188; Noes 67: Majority 121.—(Div. List, No. 41.)
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,614,903, be granted, on account, for and toward the said Service and Revenue Departments."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 207; Noes 41: Majority 166.—(Div. List, No. 42.)
  (4.) £3,309 7s. 4d., Civil Services (Excesses).
  MR. DILLONsaid, he wished to have some explanation of the causes of these excesses. He understood that the Committee were to have full explanation accompanying the Supplementary Estimates, and it might be supposed that this would include particulars as to the nature of these excesses. But he had looked through the Estimates and vainly tried to find it. One or two items were mentioned, but then came the gross sum. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury could give some explanation?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, the excesses did not arise out of the accounts of the current year, but from the year 1886–7. They were before the Public Accounts Committee yesterday, and thoroughly investigated by that Committee before being submitted to the House.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, there was one question arose on the item that caused most of the excess. It was connected with the bankruptcy business of the County Courts. It was perfectly true that this matter came before the Public Accounts Committee yesterday; but that Committee elicited the fact that neither the County Court authorities, nor apparently the Board of Trade, had any information as to the amount of Revenue derived from the bankruptcy business in County Courts. Now, as under the Act of 1883 a considerable amount of bankruptcy business was thrown on the Courts, it was perfectly clear that without that information it was impossible for the House, which was supposed to be informed as to the way in which the Act was working, to know what was the actual amount of Revenue derived from stamps in connection with bankruptcy business. Estimates were laid before the House every year, and an elaborate account of how the Act worked; but there was excluded from that statement everything connected with the business of bankruptcy in County Courts, and it was, therefore, impossible for the House to form a judgment. The Government, at any rate, ought to be in possession of this information; but the Committee were assured yesterday this was not so. He would ask whether it would be possible to obtain this?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he would do that. It had not been done, but he would get the information.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: When?
  MR. JACKSON: At once. As soon as it is possible.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS,—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. DILLON: I must object. I feel that we have been very badly treated by the Government this evening.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I hope the hon. Member will not press his objection.
  MR. DILLON: I think the right hon. Gentleman might have extended to us some of that courtesy he is ready to demand.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope I am not wanting in courtesy. As I have frequently pointed out for days past, it is a matter of the highest importance that we should get these Votes to-night.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It was 25 minutes to 12, and you would not wait.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that the clock had just struck 12 when we got through the Vote, and he knows also that the Vote is not complete without the Vote in Committee of Ways and Moans. It will be a cause of great inconvenience if that Vote is not now taken. Of course, it is in the power of hon. Gentlemen to prevent this; but I repeat again it will result in much inconvenience to the Public Service if the Vote is not now taken.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Under the circumstances, I hope hon. Members will allow the Vote to be taken, though I confess I do think that the right hon. Gentleman might have postponed his Motion for closing the debate for a quarter of an hour. The right hon. Gentleman says the Division was only completed in time to take the last Vote at 12 o'clock; but he must remember that the Division on his own Motion occupied some 20 minutes, and if he had allowed the time to be given for discussion he might have relied upon getting his Vote. I believe he would have got his Vote if he had not made his Motion for Closure—[Ironical cheers and laughter]—Oh, well! if that is the tone and spirit in which right hon. Gentlemen are prepared to moot me, I will go no further in assisting the Government. I was going to appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw his objection; but, considering the spirit with which I am met, I will not attempt to do so.
  MR. DILLON: The clock pointed to half-past 11, and there was not the slightest intention of preventing the Vote being taken. Every Member of the House must have seen there was no conceivable object in moving the closure at half-past 11, except to show the greatest possible discourtesy to a Member. No time was to be gained; the only object was to close the mouth of a

  1403
  Member of the House, without gaining any other object whatever. The right hon. Gentleman might have interposed to close the debate at 5 minutes to 12, but I repeat there was no intention of preventing a decision on the Vote. I had an important matter to refer to, and my doing so would have occupied some 10 or 15 minutes; no public object was served by moving the Closure, and I consider the right hon. Gentleman did distinctly offer to an humble Member of this House the greatest possible insult one Member could offer to another, That being so, I do not think that he can make any claim upon our courtesy.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I ask for no courtesy. I desire always to act with the greatest possible courtesy; but I have certain duties to discharge—thoy may be disagreeable duties, but they have to be discharged, whether they are pleasant or unpleasant to hon. Members or to myself. I made the Motion at 25 minutes to 12, because I was conscious of the fact that two Divisions would take place unless the Closure was accepted, and then another Vote had to be taken, to which the hon. Member objected, and I could not be certain to what length the debate might be continued. Whether I was right or whether I was wrong, is not a question of importance, except so far as I am concerned. I have done what I thought necessary in the interests of the House and of Public Business; and if, under the circumstances, hon. Gentlemen think it right to object to this Vote now, I must submit, for the Rules of the House give them the power to do so.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As this may form a precedent, perhaps some understanding may be arrived at. The right hon. Gentleman thinks it is a very small matter whether he was right or wrong; but he is mistaken. The same course was taken the other night. If, when my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) rose, the right hon. Gentleman had got up and said—"It is necessary we should have this Vote; are you going to let us have it?" we should at once have told the right hon. Gentleman that we did not intend to obstruct the Vote. But you have allowed the Admirals to occupy two days with the former Vote, not so large a Vote as this, and we have but three hours and a-half or four hours' discussion of this Vote of
  1404
  £3,000,000 or £4,000,000. With a word or two from the right hon. Gentleman, an understanding could have been arrived at. As a matter of fact, the Excess Vote was called on at three minutes to 12, and had we the desire to obstruct, nothing would have been easier than to talk the time out; but we showed our bonâ fides, and allowed the Vote to be taken. The right hon. Gentleman, would set a useful precedent if, instead of moving the Closure in this peremptory way—and I say it in no offensive sense—instead of lecturing us, for he has no business to talk on the Motion—if he, on future ocsasions, instead of resorting to this short-shrift principle, made an appeal to Members on the exigencies of the position. Let him take the counsel given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) the other night, when the right hon. Gentleman closed, in a similar manner, a question in. reference to the use of stone in some buildings in Ireland; lot him try some measure of conciliation, and afterwards resort to the extreme Motion if necessary. I hope now, under all the circumstances, and after the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), and being, for my own part, prepared to return good for evil, that the Vote may be allowed to be taken.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw his objection?
  MR. BIGGAR: I object.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

MOTIONS.

  BAIL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of the Lord Advocate, Bill to amend the Law of Bail in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General, and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 172]

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (ADMISSION OF STRANGERS).
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the Rules and Regulations under which Strangers are admitted to this House and its precincts, and to report whether any alterations in the same are expedient."—(Viscount Ebrington.)

  ARMY ESTIMATES.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on Army Estimates do consist of Seventeen Members;—
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Lord Randolph Churchill, Mr. Jennings, Mr. A. Gathorne-Hardy, Mr. James Campbell, Sir Frederick Fitz Wygram, Captain Cotton, Mr. Brodrick, Mr. Stanhope, Sir Henry Havelock-Allan, Sir William Grossman, Mr. Childers, Mr. Henry. H. Fowler, Mr. Woodall, Mr. Picton, Dr. Cameron, Colonel Nolan, and Mr. O'Kelly, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the Quorum.

  DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.
  Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message as proposes the time and place of meeting of the Joint Committee on Debates and Proceedings in Parliament be now considered.
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee appointed to join with the Committee of the Lords, to inquire and report as to the cost and method of the publication of the Debates and Proceedings in Parliament, do meet in Room No. 1, Upper Corridor, on Thursday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords, to acquaint their Lordships that this House hath directed the Select Committee appointed by them to inquire and report as to the cost and method of the publication of the Debates and Proceedings in Parliament, do meet in Room No. 1, Upper Corridor, on Thursday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee have power to agree in the appointment of a Chairman.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) (43).
Second Reading—Church Discipline (27); Statute Law Revision (35).
Report—Law of Distress Amendment (23-44); Railway and Canal Traffic (41).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Bangor and Warrenpoint.)

CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.—(No. 27.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.—(No. 27.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTEBBUEY (Dr. BENSON)said, he had to ask their Lordships to give a second reading to this Bill, as one of great importance, and directed to the correction of very great evils. All were agreed that there could be scarcely any worse evil in the Church or the world than an evil clergyman, one who was authorized, commissioned, and set in his place to teach religion and morals, but made himself an example of how to set at nought both religion and morality. Cases appeared from time to time in the newspapers which made all men ask what gain could there be to the cause of Christianity from an exercise of the pastoral office by such a man. On the contrary, there were both grievous injuries to the place
  1240
  where the evils occurred, and they were scarcely less injurious to the Church and to religion at large. But while all felt that they, perhaps, failed to observe or remember how different from one another such cases were, and what defects appeared in the treatment of many of them under existing law, there were other cases which did not appear in the nowspapers, but were known to the Bishops, which also caused great scandal. Taking them altogether, they were not numerically very large as compared with the number of the clergy, but they were a very poisonous evil. The cases were very difficult to touch, the processes were very complicated, liable to the most technical objections and very costly, the penalties often futile. This Bill was framed after careful consideration of the defects and difficulties of the present law, and had been thoroughly examined by one Committee after another of those who were most cognizant of the evils and most able to suggest remedies. It was based mainly on the Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Courts. He would point out where the Bill chiefly departed from that Report, and why. By the present system, under the Church Discipline Act, the process began with the issuing of a Commission to inquire whether there was a primâ facie case in any particular instance when complaint was made or scandal existed. Five Commissioners were named by the Bishop for the purpose. But, as a matter of fact, the Bishop himself was often obliged to collect evidence on account of the great unwillingness of the very people who made the complaint to come forward and give evidence. They dreaded the possible expense, and were also very much afraid of their names appearing. The consequence was that the Bishop had to employ persons to get evidence, he had to prosecute, and, after that, he had to be the Judge, for the Commissioners were his nominees, and the case came finally into his own Court. There was another evil of a very grave kind. A clergyman might be convicted in a Criminal Court of drunkenness or theft, indecent assault, or infamous conduct. But though judgment bad been passed upon him, still legal proceedings had to be taken against him in an Ecclesiastical Court, and all the particulars had to be gone over again. That was,

  1241
  as a matter of good sense, very unnecessary; it perpetuated and spread the scandal, and added very greatly to the expense. Another great evil was that when the Commissioners had found a primâ facie case, it frequently seemed to a Bishop so unadvisable that he should hear a case about which the previous steps had almost compelled him to form an opinion, that it was most commonly sent by Letters of Bequest to the Provincial Court. The Chancellor, who was the proper Judge, did not, by the Church Discipline Act, sit in the Diocesan Court; the consequence was that the Diocesan Courts were destroyed, and the expenses to all parties were very much increased, because it was necessary in the Provincial Court to employ leading and junior counsel, and the distance which witnesses and others had to be sent added very much to the cost. In the Provincial Court itself, the Bill proposed to replace the Judge in the ancient conditions which had been very recently and disastrously altered. And now, supposing the case, however, to have been carried to an issue, and the offender convicted and sentenced, still there was great difficulty in many cases in enforcing the decrees. A man might be suspended ab officio and a beneficio, and yet he might refuse to leave the house of residence, then an action of ejectment was probably the only remedy, and then the whole question whether he had been properly suspended would have to be tried over again. But even if it were arranged that he should leave the house, he might then still insist on living in the parish which he had corrupted and scandalized, and all the original evil might be reproduced and intensified. He had seen an instance, in which, when nothing was added to the provision that the man should leave the house of residence, he took a house within the parish, and though an admirable clergyman was put in, who might hare restored the parish to peace, harmony, and good feeling, and revived the services of the Church, the subsequent career of the suspended clergyman did almost more evil than before. Again, the man might refuse to give up the church as well as the house, and might carry on the services, which perhaps no one would attend, and there wore no certain means of preventing such a scandal. Add to all this that
  1242
  costs were very heavy, and could often be recovered only by sequestration of the benefice. Then the benefice was injured; but more often there was nothing to recover, since necessary outgoings and the provision for duty being carried on exhausted the whole available means. At the best, the only way in which all the expenses could be recovered was by the Bishop securing a conviction. If he failed he had to bear all the expense; while if he succeeded, he had still large sums to pay. Many Bishops had been mulcted in very large amounts; a single clergyman had been described to him as "a constant source of expense to his Bishop," while he was afraid to say how far one Bishop had suffered in that way from one case after another. If the Commission found that there was a primâ facie case, the Bishop was compelled to proceed to a trial, on account of the great scandal created, if under such circumstances the man was undisturbed, though he and his advisers were satisfied that he was foredoomed to fail, since they were aware that the evidence on which the Commission had formed their conclusion was not such as would fall within rules of evidence, or, perhaps, be even producible in Court. Another difficulty in the working of the Commission was that the Bishop and all persons concerned were at the mercy of one man. He knew a case himself in which the Commissioners were divided two against two, and the fifth Commissioner, an un-unfortunate selection—for all were selected ad hoc—said he was persuaded himself that the man was innocent, but that for the satisfaction of all parties the case had better be tried regularly; and tried it was, and lost. Then, under the Pluralities Act, which was one of the methods of proceeding, there was no provision made for expenses, and the Bishop himself was personally liable. The beneficed clergy did not fall very much into the category of those men of whom he had been speaking. In early legislation the cartularies of French Kings contained stringent provisions against "vagabundi et palabundi episcopi." He did not know that there existed at present any class of "roving and wandering Bishops; "but there were too many presbyters who fell under that description. There wore few cases comparatively in which they appeared.

  1243
  England, and especially London, drew from all over the world persons who made very brief and unsatisfactory residence in any place, and whom it was almost impossible to trace. They wandered up and down, taking duty for short spaces of time, and committing all sorts of offences. There was wanting some summary process for deposing such men from the ministry, and of getting at those incumbents who, without authority and without inquiry, imposed on by plausible manners and stories, employed them. He had left in the Bill the Court as recommended to be constituted by the Royal Commission, and as he thought it certainly ought to be constituted in most cases—namely, the Chancellor. It was further provided, in accordance with the same recommendations, that if the Bishop deemed the case to be of sufficient importance, it should be tried by the Bishop himself with two or more assessors, The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell) had earned the lasting gratitude of a Northern diocese by acting as such assessor. At present the Bishop, with assessors, was by the Church Discipline Bill the sole Judge in the Diocesan Court. It seemed to him, however, that some defendants might reasonably object to be tried by the Chancellor alone, or by the Bishop, from whose previous knowledge of himself he could not hope for much bias in his favour. If exception were taken to the Chancellor's solitary action and to the Bishop's action, it was suggested that the defendant should be allowed to appeal to a Court constituted of the Chancellor and the Commissioners under the Pluralities Act Amendment Act. This liberty would remove the faintest suspicion of bias. The Bill, however, made a slight difference in the Commissioners under that Act. That Act required that two Commissioners should be elected ad hoc as each case arose. It seemed desirable, however, for the sake of fairness, that no Commissioner should be elected ad hoc, but that they should be elected, like other Commissioners under the Pluralities Act Amendment Act, for a period of three years. One was to be elected by the clergy of the diocese, one by the Chapter of the diocese, and two laymen were to be nominated by the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions. This Bill, then, intrusted all ordinary cases to the Chan-
  1244
  cellor alone, and he would suggest, by way of amendment, that the Chancellor should be allowed, in cases it was possible for him to attend, to nominate a deputy. By that plan the Bishop would reserve such cases as it was fitting that he should deal with, and the defendant might at his option claim a fuller Court. Such an arrangement would leave little opening for appeals, that fruitful source of expense. This Bill, then—to sum up—sought to simplify two processes of the Ecclesiastical Courts, to save the delays, minimize the expenses, and make the sentence no longer futile. That it would do by accepting the record of Civil Courts, restoring the Chancellor to his functions, providing an experienced tribunal of wider constitution in some cases, obviating objections generally felt as to the recent constitution of the Provincial Court, to diminish costs, partly to lessen the unfairness of Bishops bearing the whole expense of bringing gross offenders to justice, and to make condemnation a reality by delivering the parsonage, the parish church, and the parishioners from the mercies of an immoral or disgracefully neglectful pastor and the baleful influences which surrounded such a man. He had stated the objections to the present condition of the law, and the remedy it was hoped to apply. The sole object which had been kept in view was to correct what in the judgment of all ought to be corrected. He had no doubt there were details which might be amended by the wisdom of their Lordships' House, and no one would be more thankful than he for any improvements. He would ask their Lordships now to read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, he did not disapprove of the main object of the Bill; but he could not say as much for the manner in which it was to be effected, and he thought it desirable to point out, comprehensively, some of the chief defects in the Bill before trying to amend them in detail by the awkward process by which alone Bills could be amended in a Committee of the Whole House, Besides the general purpose of dealing with what were legally called criminous clerks, if that was really going to be done properly, it was clearly

  1245
  a good thing to enable rules to be made by the Lord Chancellor and other authorities for reforming the practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts, which had been getting more full of technical pitfalls continually, and, above all, by that most unhappy specimen of ecclesiastical legislation—the Public Worship Act. Another good thing in the Bill was that it repealed one portion of that Act—namely, the usurpation of power for the Crown—that was, for the Prime Minister—to approve, and therefore to take if he chose, the appointment of the Dean of Arches, who was now the Judge of both Provinces. It seemed to him absurd, however, to give any Archbishop the power to sever them again, especially as there was no salary left for the Provincial Judge of York, while the Canterbury one had £1,600 a-year. But the Archbishops and Bishops now proposed a much more serious counter-usurpation of their own—that sentence of deprivation of a benefice—which was a purely civil transaction, and might and must be pronounced by any Judge at the Assizes, on a parson who was a second time convicted there of violating the rubrics (and there the Bishop could not protect him by the dispensing power of the veto)—should not be pronounced by the Dean of Arches or Chancellor who really gave the judgment, but the Archbishop or Bishop was to be called in to do it as a sort of executioner. Moreover, that was in flat contradiction to a decision of the Privy Council in "Bonwell v. Bishop of London," as to the Dean of Arches, who was clearly proved to have always been the proper person to deprive in the Provincial Court. It was true that the 122nd Canon professed to prohibit anyone but the Bishop from pronouncing deprivations in a Diocesan Court, and it had been assumed to be legal; but never decided or argued; and it had not been observed by those who assumed it, that the Canon was an illegal usurpation by the Convocations of 1603, in direct opposition to the great heresy Act of 13 Eliz., which enacted that the defendant "should be deprived by the Bishop or the Ordinary, and on such sentence he should be indeed deprived." And all the Acts of Uniformity expressly reserved power for the Chancellor to excommunicate and to deprive "in like form as heretofore hath been used by
  1246
  the Queen's ecclesiastical laws." Every lawyer knew that the Canons were invalid against Acts of Parliament, invalid against the laity, and therefore against a lay Chancellor even without those Acts, and that the Queen's Bench had said it would not help them by prohibition. Even the Church Discipline Act of 1840, which was itself an aggression, said that sentence was to be pronounced by the Bishop or his Commissary. Therefore, this clause of the Bill, both for Archbishops and Bishops, was a piece of clerical aggression, and an attempt to introduce the thin end of the High Church wedge, that ecclesiastical jurisdiction proceeded from what they called the Church, by which they meant the clergy, in the face of every legal authority and every Act of Parliament on the subject from the very beginning of the Reformation, and some time before it too. And what was to be done if the Archbishop or Bishop refused to come in and act as executioner under his Judge, and even to defy a mandamus and set up as a martyr? Indeed, the Bill was evidently framed with care, so as to enable them to evade a mandamus if one should be attempted. And so far was this ecclesiastical usurpation carried, that even the sentence of the Judicial Committee signed by the Queen was no longer to be sufficient, but it was to be sent into the Ecclesiastical Court, for the Bishop or Archbishop to ratify by pronouncing it, if he chose. He would like to know whether the proper guardians of the jurisdiction of the Crown over all persons, ecclesiastical as well as civil, meant to submit to that? And it was a sufficient indication of the spirit of the Bill throughout. The Bill also destroyed the proper legal relations of the Bishops and their Courts in making them both prosecutors, as they always had been legally though not exclusively, and Judges, as they never had been from the Reformation until 1840, except during the two short periods that the Court of High Commission lasted, legally and illegally, which their Lordships knew had twice to be put down by Parliament for its tyranny. Their modern introduction as Judges was entirely effected by a man whose name did not raise a presumption in its favour—namely, Bishop Philpotts, and the singular history of it was worth summing up from the debates of that

  1247
  time. Both in 1838 and 1839 this House passed a Bill, introduced by Lord Chancellor Cottenham, without any such episcopal aggression in it, which was lost by time only in the other House. It was founded, as he said, on the Report of the first Ecclesiastical Commission, which comprised all the principal Bishops and Judges—a very different body from that of 1883 on the Ecclesiastical Courts. That was a very simple Bill, and its main object was to send all ecclesiastical suits at once to the Provincial Court, to be tried there in a more simple way than they were then, or now. Lord Cottenham said that the Bill was approved by most of the Members of that former Commission, and several of them confirmed it, and said that, so far as it differed from their Report, they approved of the change; and, further, he said that it took away no jurisdiction of the Bishops, because they had none to take away, except through their Chancellors, who certainly did not object to lose it, having no exalted Church notions to gratify by retaining it. The Peculiars, of which nearly 300 were also abolished, were Courts quite independent of the Bishops. That Bill gave the Provincial Judge the very useful power of stopping a suit as soon as he perceived that it was frivolous and vexatious. That power was unluckily afterwards transferred to the Bishops, who had notoriously used it for a very different, and, indeed, exactly opposite purpose, and in a manner which had been condemned by some of the highest Judges, even while they were legally deciding in favour of the Bishop, and by a large and weighty minority of the late Commission—namely, to reverse for all practical purposes decisions of the Supreme Court, which had been fought for by both the Church parties at enormous expense, and therefore could not be deemed frivolous or unimportant. It did not seem to have been observed that the veto in the hands of any Bishop with strong leanings either way, as most of them and of the clergy always had, enabled him to make the law of the Church just what he liked throughout his diocese, exactly like the dispensing power usurped by James II. for much the same purpose; and it was being so used continually in some, and probably in most dioceses, for people knew that it
  1248
  was useless to apply for leave to enforce the law. Further, it made every Bishop odious to one party or the other, according as he allowed or forbade prosecutions, as had been amply proved by experience already. Accordingly, in the Bill which he submitted to the Commission of 1883, and which was printed in their evidence, as a substitute for the Church Discipline and the Public Worship Acts, he had copied, in substance, that provision of Lord Cottenham' s Bill instead of the episcopal veto. Both in 1838 and 1839 Bishop Philpotts made one of his tremendous onslaughts on that Bill, and called it the most deadly attack that had ever been made upon the Church of England. He easily inflamed the clergy into the same belief, and they furnished him with a lot of Petitions to that effect; but it was singular that they had hardly ever submitted to the power which he ultimately got to try them, and it was practically obsolete. 'Yet the present Bill revived or extended it. Bishop Philpotts was not so successful in making this House believe him. Even the mitis sapientia of Archbishop Howley warmed into indignation, and Bishop Blomfield's more immitis sapientia turned upon him as he deserved; and when, at last, after two years' talking, he ventured on a Division, no more than 11 Peers voted with him. After that, he entered an elaborate Protest, which, it was remarkable, did not venture to assert that any Bishop ever sat, or had the right to sit, in his own Court since the Reformation. But then came something still more extraordinary. Although he had been so thoroughly beaten and refuted by the Archbishop and Bishop Blomfield in 1839, he somehow managed afterwards to frighten or cajole them, and through them the Government, into adopting a fundamentally different Bill in 1840, giving the Bishops judicial power for the first time, but not without appeal to the very Provincial Court which he had denounced; and that brought with it a multitude of complications, to provide for preliminary inquiries, and the substitution of one Bishop for another, where the prosecuting and possibly judicial one was also patron; which caused the great fiasco of the Archdeacon Denison case after some years and many stages of the suit; and then.

  1249
  came the new veto on prosecutions by anybody else. Lord Cottenham said he disclaimed all responsibility for that Act at last, though he would not try to stop it, as the matter had been so long in agitation. Very soon after it was passed, the then Dean of Arches remarked on its badness of drafting, as he mildly put it; and there had been endless confusion and enormous waste of money and abortive suits arising from it. Yet this Bill proceeded on the same lines, and introduced a great deal more complication, and more alternatives of preliminary Courts. The most rev. Prelate had, as it was called, read a first time another Bill about Ecclesiastical Procedure on the same day as this, but it had not yet seen the light—at least, among laymen, though he had received some strong condemnation of it from a Bishop who was not an exalter of clerical jurisdiction; and he took for granted that it did not modify the Bill now before their Lordships, which he must take as he found it, though they ought to have had both together, at least to read and understand. The most rev. Prelate had spoken of the expense of taking criminous clerks to the Provincial Court; but he forgot that exactly those who had caused such expense by fighting every inch of ground hitherto would do just the same again, and take him before his Dean of Arches in the end instead of the beginning, so that he would only have double the expense, and not half, as he might under a proper Act. He (Lord Grimthorpe) himself thoroughly agreed with the views of Lord Penzance in his Report of 1883, and with Bishop Blomfield's last views of the radical unfitness of Bishops to act as Judges. It was true that the Bill gave an option to defendants to pick and chose out of three kinds of Diocesan Courts, or, rather, four—of the Bishop and his Chancellor, each with or without Assessors without judicial votes, and Commissioners with them, of whom three were to be clergymen, and might overrule the proper Judge and his one lay colleague. All that only showed the same clerical aggressiveness as the Report of 1883 did, and a hopeless confusion in the minds of the inventors of all those new alternative tribunals, which somebody must pay for, and which all had to end in the
  1250
  same Provincial Judge. The most rev. Prelate justified the Bill by saying that it was founded on that Report. It was impossible, without notice, to examine how far they agreed, and quite immaterial; for the Bill could hardly have a worse recommendation, considering how all the legal history on which that Report was based had been exposed, for such inaccuracies as wore not unnatural, seeing that it had been avowedly entrusted to three Members, not one of whom was a lawyer, and, in fact, ultimately to one, who, however eminent as a historian, in other ways was dearly not qualified for writing a legal history, and showed in nearly every page a strong ecclesiastical bias in one direction always, as the Report itself finally did, whether all the signers of it understood it or not. If their Lordships cared to have proofs of that statement, he would refer them to The Edinburgh Review account of the Report, in January, 1884, which seemed to be well known to have been written by a very eminent Member of the Commission, or to a still more do-tailed examination of the history in Mr. Tomlinson's pamphlet, or to his own Letter to the Archbishop of York upon it; none of which had ever been answered. It should never be forgotten, too, that Archbishop Tait had died before that Report was written, or in any degree settled, as their own Minutes showed; and his questions to the witnesses and his Preface to Brodrick and Fremantle's Privy Council Judgments had all pointed in the opposite direction. The anti-legal bias of the Report was sufficiently shown by its mode of dealing with the Bishop's right to sit judicially, which was treated as all but certain, and as admitted by legal decisions or dicta, for which references to law books were given. Those references proved nothing of the kind, and the writer had evidently misunderstood the nature of the Archbishop's visitatorial jurisdiction over Bishops, as was held in the case of Bishop Watson, and ignored an Act of Henry VIII. which had probably preserved it, though the Discipline Act of 1840 was hold to have destroyed the punitive visitatorial power over Deans and Canons. Moreover, the Report set out in full a dozen Chancellor's patents, with a paragraph in italics reserving the Bishop's right to sit himself, and one of the very few surviving clerical

  1251
  Chancellors, himself a Member of the Commission, helped them by saying that Bishops of Chester had sat in modern times; which was all swept away by two interrogative words of the Lord Chief Justice—"in invitum? "—to which there was no answer. But that also went for nothing with the Commission and their historian. If the Bishops had reserved the right to burn heretics in their parents, who would have cared or meddled, with them, until they had raised the in invitum question practically by a sentence for combustion? That was a sufficient specimen of the legal value and the ecclesiastical bias of the Report of that Commission, and he could give plenty more. Last year, when the most rev. Prelate brought forward his Patronage Bill for taking away the rights of the heirs of the founders of all benefices, he dilated on the number of Diocesan Conferences which had approved of it. This Bill specially concerned the clergy, and they did not hear of a single clerical assembly that had approved of it, or even seen it yet, of which he saw that the clergy were complaining. The High Church newspapers, of course, approved it as a whole, on account of those very aggressions on the State jurisdiction, which they wore constantly striving to supplant, and to undo the Reformation, as the more candid Ritualists had avowed. Looking at it from the parishioners' point of view, it seemed not to go far enough towards getting rid of the commonest kind of clerical offenders (not that he meant that they were absolutely common)—namely, drunkards, who, it was often complained, wore only suspended for a year or two at the most, and then returned as bad as ever. It seemed necessary to give some stronger legislative direction to the Provincial Court on that point. There was a monstrous direction in the Bill that every kind of Civil Court, down to the Justices at Potty Sessions, should send certificates to the Bishop of every verdict or judgment against a clergyman for every kind of act punishable by imprisonment, which practically meant everything for which a trifling fine might be imposod—for which imprisonment was always an alternative—or for a libel, such as giving a discharged servant too bad a character in the opinion of a jury; or writing against employing a dissenting architect to fit up a church; or calling a man a convict
  1252
  after he has returned from penal servitude; or calling tradesmen's lies a fraud, all which things had been so found by juries. And then if the Bishop, in his unlimited discretion, wanted to get rid of him, he might prosecute, and perhaps try him himself; and he was not even to be allowed to prove that he was not guilty but only to "extenuate" his offence; or, on the other hand, however bad he may be in the opinion of his neighbours, the Bishop may protect him and defy them. That was the kind of legislation which the most rev. Prelate told them had been elaborated with so much care by some undisclosed proficients in the art, who had not even taken the trouble to look at the proper titles of the Provincial and the Diocesan Judges of York, either in their patents or in the Public Worship Act. It would be very difficult to amend such a Bill into a proper state in a Committee of the House, and he was not at all sure that he should try, as the Government seemed disposed to let the Bishops deal with these matters as they chose, with such results as they had seen in nearly all their Bills of recent times, which everybody complained of within two years after they were passed. The whole subject wanted thoroughly reviewing in a very different style from this, and in connection with whatever Bill was to deal with ecclesiastical procedure generally.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he could not see that the Bill was a dangerous one, as interfering with any settlement made at the time of the Reformation. The Bill differed in an important respect from those which had preceded it, having the same object in view; and he held that it was extremely wise and expedient to make that difference. A former measure introduced in that House dealt with all classes of ecclesiastical offences, those relating to ritual as well as those against morality. This comprehensiveness led to opposition from various quarters; for many people objected to the proposal to facilitate proceedings for ritual offences, while they approved the proposal to facilitate proceedings to punish offences against morality. There were some who would not be opposed to a measure dealing with the reform of proceedings against a clergyman charged with immorality who would consider it was not the proper function of Parliament to deal with such offences. He thought

  1253
  there would be an agreement between those who belonged to the Church and those who were hostile to it politically, that, in the interests of religion, it was very inexpedient that a clergyman should be guilty of gross immorality and indecency, and yet that there should be difficulty in bringing him to task and inflicting the punishment called for by his offence. As to the best machinery for arriving at those results, there might be room for great differences of opinion, and, as he understood, the most rev. Prelate was open to consider any improvement of the machinery proposed, as the single aim of the Bill was to enable offences against immorality to be more speedily, more cheaply, and more certainly dealt with. Their Lordships, therefore, ought to have no difficulty in giving a second reading to the Bill, some of the provisions of which might be open to amendment in Committee. There ought not to be any difficulty about creating a machinery to try these oases. They were very different from ecclesiastical offences in the broad sense which required ecclesiastical knowledge on the part of those dealing with them. The offences in question were of a kind that everybody was capable of appreciating, and the hearing of a charge required simply the application of common sense to the evidence that was adduced in support of it. As the law now stood, proceedings in respect of an offence against morality must be taken within a certain time of the commission of the offence. A case had happened in which a clergyman lived in adultery, and the fact remained concealed for a time. Proceedings were at last taken in the Divorce Court, and the facts were proved, and a divorce followed; but it was too late for proceedings to be taken in the Ecclesiastical Courts, as the period had elapsed within which it was required they should be commenced; and if it had not been that that clergyman had committed another offence against morality, for which he was tried and received punishment, he must have been permitted to continue in charge of his parish, without any proceedings being taken against him. This Bill would provide an extension of time in such a case by allowing proceedings to be commenced after the offender had been found guilty in a Civil Court. Without committing him-
  1254
  self to all the details of the Bill, he should support the second reading on the grounds he had stated.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)said, the most rev. Prelate had exercised a wise discretion in confining the Bill to offences against morality, and in not including ecclesiastical offences, which would have to be dealt with in the future. The Bill was brought forward to meet a definite evil—the difficulties experienced by the Bishops in dealing with offences against morality. Surely such a state of things as had been described ought not to be allowed to continue. The details of the Bill might require to be amended in Committee. The Ecclesiastical Commission, of which he was a member, made no attempt to restore a state of things which existed before the Reformation; but they tried to find a solution for a grave state of things in ecclesiastical matters, and to devise some Court for trying both offences against morality and offences against ecclesiastical law. Neither in the minds of the Commissioners nor on the part of the Prelates was there the slightest wish for aggression on the rights of the clergy. The Bill only aimed to provide a proper and effective remedy for cases of immorality which were a scandal to the Church and country, and he hoped their Lordships would agree to the second reading.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

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

  (NO. 44.) REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that in pursuance of an undertaking given in Committee to consider the expediency of assimilating the Law of Distress under the Agricultural Holdings Act to this Bill, he proposed to omit Clause 7, relating to the appraisement of goods, and to insert a new clause, which would be applicable both to the present Bill and to the Agricultural Holdings Act. He moved the insertion of a new clause after Clause 4, providing that—
  "So much of an Act passed in the second year of the reign of their Majesties King William III. and Mary, chapter 5, as requires appraisement before sale of goods distrained is

  1255
  hereby repealed, except in cases where the tenant or owner of the goods and chattels by "writing requires such appraisement to be made, and the landlord or other person levying a distress may sell the goods and chattels distrained without causing them to be previously appraised; and, for the purposes of sale, the goods and chattels distrained shall, at the request in writing of the tenant or owner of such goods and chattels, be removed to a public auction room or to some other fit and proper place specified in such request, and be there sold. The cost and expenses of appraisement, when required by the tenant, shall be borne and paid by him; and the costs and expenses attending any such removal, and any damage to the goods and chattels arising therefrom, shall be borne and paid by the person requesting the removal."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 44.)

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.

  (NO. 35.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the object of the great bulk of the Bill was to enable the superfluous words "be it enacted that" to be omitted wherever they occurred in the Acts of Parliament reprinted in the first three volumes of the new cheap edition of The Statutes Revised. The first volume, which would otherwise have come out at the beginning of the year, had been postponed to enable this and some other small repeals to be made. It was surprising to know that it would lessen the size of the book by 60 pages. It was hoped that there might be no delay in passing so formal a measure through Parliament, so that the production of the cheap edition of the revised statutes might be proceeded with.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.
(The Lord Stanley of Preston.)
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.

  (NO. 41.) REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 80 (Definitions).
  Amendment moved, to insert, "The term ('merchandize') shall include ('cattle, live stock, and animals of all descriptions')."—(The Lord Stanley of Preston.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

MERCHANDIZE MARKS ACT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HERSCHELL, in rising to call attention to the working of the Merchandize Marks Act; and to ask What steps have been or are being taken to render the Act effectual in India, the Colonies, and foreign countries? said, he had been led to call attention to this subject because he had been engaged for upwards of a year as Chairman of a Committee sitting at the Board of Trade to inquire into the working of the Trade Marks and Patents Act, and a good deal of information upon the cognate subject of the Merchandize Marks Act had come before him. He did not intend to cast the slightest doubt upon the wisdom or expediency of passing that measure. He thought that some such measure had become absolutely necessary. Acts which in the first instance must undoubtedly have been consciously fraudulent, had come in some cases to be almost usages of trade; and it was very difficult, if not impossible, for anyone, without at least an extraordinary amount of moral fibre, to set himself against the prevailing practice. Marks were put upon manufactured goods which were neither more nor less than false in intention and necessarily deceptive. The evil was a growing one, therefore he did not for a moment doubt that it was both wise and necessary in the interests of honest trade and honest traders to put a stop, as far as possible, to so prejudicial a state of things. There was no doubt that dishonest traders acting in this way injured trade generally. Marks on goods which had won a reputation in particular markets were put on articles of an inferior character, and, for a time, a profit was made by underselling the bonâ fide manufacturer, who was sometimes either driven out of the market, or compelled to abandon the mark under which the reputation of his goods had been achieved. So far as the Act had affected these merchants and

  1257
  traders, he believed that its operation had been, upon the whole, extremely beneficial, and, without the necessity of resorting to prosecutions, it had largely checked a practice to which it was desired to put an end. But it had a wider scope than that. While, on the one hand, there were British merchants and manufacturers who adopted questionable practices, they in turn, and, indeed, British merchants and manufacturers generally, suffered from the use of fraudulent marks by foreign manufacturers. Foreign goods of an inferior description were passed off as British goods, and thus injured the sale of British goods and the credit of British manufacturers and merchants. This was a very serious evil, and it was one object of the Act to check the practice as far as possible. Of course, as far as the United Kingdom was concerned, it was possible to make the Act effective by the exercise of vigilance on the part of the Customs authorities, and foreign manufacturers' goods coming into the country had been dealt with to a considerable extent under the Act. But it was obvious that the utmost care ought to be taken not to stop any goods which really ought not to be stopped, because by stopping such goods discredit would be brought on the working of the Act and real damage would be done. There was need of what he might call extra care and precaution in this matter. One case had been brought to his attention where it was alleged that goods ordered by a merchant in Russia from an American manufacturer were not allowed to be landed in this country for the purpose of being trans-shipped to Russia because they wore stamped "Stamford Co.," and the mark might be misunderstood for Stamford in Lincolnshire. Our shipping trade might be seriously injured by such action as this. There were other ways of sending goods to Russia than by British steamers and through this country. It was much easier to divert trade than to recall it, and, therefore, it was necessary that great precautions should be taken in the working of the Act. But it was not so much by the importation of such, goods into this country that British manufacturers had suffered, as by their importation into India, our Australian Colonies, and foreign countries in the East. What had been the effect up to
  1258
  the present time with, regard to this aspect of the question? The Act passed last summer had not come into operation until the 1st of January, 1888. Down to the present time no law had been passed in India which, enabled any of these falsely-marked goods to be stopped at the Indian ports. What had happened? Goods which came to this country for trans-shipment to India had been stopped, but these goods were now sent from foreign ports in foreign ships, and got just as readily into India; and the British merchant and manufacturer suffered just as much as formerly, while the British ship-owner was injured. Their Lordships would see, therefore, that unless steps were taken to prevent these goods from being imported into India, and were taken speedily, there was likely to be serious damage to the shipping interest of this country, He thought that our merchants and manufacturers had a right to insist that, while they were brought under these strict regulations, the foreign shipowner should not be allowed to introduce into India goods that could only be injurious to the Indian consumer and which were a serious disadvantage to the English merchant and manufacturer. In the interests of India there could not be any reason for the slightest delay in passing legislation to give the authorities at the Indian ports power to stop falsely-marked goods. He therefore ventured to put it before their Lordships as a most urgent matter that at the earliest possible date stops should be taken to enable these authorities to do so. He believed that commercial people in India were strongly in favour of such a step, the Bombay Chamber of Commerce having petitioned in favour of it. With regard to the Colonies, there were, no doubt, greater difficulties; they had representative Governments, and their Parliamentary procedure necessarily created a good deal of difficulty which did not exist in the case of India. The remarks, however, which he had made with regard to India applied also to the Colonies; unless steps were taken to enforce this law in the ports of Australia, a serious injury would result to our manufacturing interest which it ought not to be called upon to suffer. There could be no countervailing advantage to the Australians in having these goods introduced into their country.

  1259
  There might be some difficulty as to their adopting the whole of the Merchandize Marks Act, but without waiting for the complete measure they might be asked to pass the few clauses enabling them to deal with those falsely-marked goods which came from Europe to their ports. That ought not to be a matter of serious difficulty, and would meet the case referred to. Now, he turned to the case of China and Japan. He was told that the matter was somewhat serious there also, and that there were certain German houses, not by any means scrupulous in their dealings, who sent out quantities of goods, some of very good quality, which were stamped as German goods, and some of very inferior quality, which were marked as English goods. The consequence was that not merely did these goods undersell British goods in these markets, but also gave them, as far as they could, a bad reputation in the market, by flooding it with inferior goods. That, of course, was a very serious matter, and one which ought, as far as possible, to be dealt with. Nobody could doubt that during the last few years the strain of competition had become more severe than in former times, although from all he had heard he was not disposed to take the gloomy view which had been taken by some. He believed that we were holding our own as well as could possibly be expected, in spite of competition. Nevertheless, it must be agreed that we could not afford to endure any addition to the difficulty which it was possible to remove and alleviate, if anything could be done to put a stop to such a state of matters as that to which he had referred. It could not be to the interest of China and Japan that they should have their markets flooded with goods which pretended to be something which they were not. Therefore, as far as they were concerned, there could not be any motive for opposition, although, of course, those who were guilty of these practices would wish, to continue them. He could not help thinking that as the evil was so serious, and the matter was one in which these countries had no other interest than our own, some steps should be taken, whether by International arrangement or otherwise, to put a stop to the existing state of affairs, no was sure that the import-
  1260
  ance of the matter would be recognized by all.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)said, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord, and thought it extremely important, in the interests of our manufacturers, that these fraudulent practices should be put a stop to as early as possible. A letter on the subject was received at the India Office in June last from the Board of Trade, suggesting legislation. That letter was forwarded to the Government of India, by whom the matter was already being considered, together with copies of the Bill which had been passed in this country. Not having hoard what was being done, he had recently sent another despatch to India, and on the 29th of February asked by telegram for a reply. The answer received was that the subject was still under consideration, and a reply would be sent as soon as possible. The matter, therefore, had not been lost sight of. He was aware that there were certain difficulties in the way. In 1879 a Bill had been brought forward by the Viceroy for the purpose of providing for the registration of trade marks. This was done in consequence of the representations of the Chamber of Commerce of Bombay and other mercantile associations. That measure had been referred to a Select Committee, but was withdrawn at the desire of the mercantile bodies. If the answer which he received from India was not satisfactory, he would call attention to the points to which the noble and learned Lord had referred, and probably there would not be much difficulty in passing a law to meet the necessities of the case.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD)said, he desired to express his entire concurrence in the observations of the noble and learned Lord. He might add that, so far as the Colonies were concerned, the question of merchandize marks was very fully discussed at the Colonial Conference, and he thought that, without exception, all the representatives and delegates from the Colonies were in favour of legislation, something of the kind which now existed in this country. He had sent out a circular at once after that Act had passed to all the Colonies. An Act dealing with the question had

  1261
  been passed by one Colony only—namely, St. Helena—where the question was not very likely to occur. Bills had been introduced by five Colonies—namely, British Guiana, Cyprus, Gibraltar, the Gold Coast, and the Straits Settlements; nine Colonies had promised that such legislation would be introduced; and 19, including Canada, Newfoundland, New South Wales, Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, and Trinidad, had not sent any answer. He had, therefore, sent out a reminding circular, pressing upon them the importance of such legislation. He was afraid that none of the Australian Parliaments were now sitting; but he would take care that all due pressure should be put upon the Colonial Parliaments to pass legislation on the subject.
  LORD STANLEY OF PRESTONsaid, he wished to make a few remarks with regard to the action of the Customs in the matter. The Act in question was extremely difficult to administer. The Customs officers had thrown upon them a very invidious and critical duty in examining the goods coming from abroad and seeing whether the marks upon them contravened the provisions of the Act or not. In the earlier stage there was far from being any feeling on the part of the commercial classes that the Customs exercised any undue rigour. Though the Customs pointed out all the difficulties they had to contend with, the pressure put upon them by the merchants and traders was extreme to make the enforcement of the Act as strict as possible. There was a case in which a large consignment of goods was stopped. The head office of the firm was in London, the depot in Antwerp, and the manufactory in South America, and though it was claimed that the goods showed the origin required by the Act, it was held that that was not clear, because it was merely stated that the manufactory was in South America and the depòt at Antwerp. There were many cases of that kind, and he believed that, on the whole, the Customs officers had done their duty with great impartiality and ability. As the Act became better known, he was sure it would realize the desires of the trading classes; but if it were to be thoroughly successful it must be stringently applied.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, he had listened with great curiosity to the speech of the noble and learned Lord opposite in order to discover by what machinery he would act in the ports of other countries. He did not know by what authority he would be able to apply to foreign countries to put the machinery of the Act in force. It was not a question of negotiations or of any number of Conventions or Treaties; but what was wanted was the zeal of the Executive acting on the Custom House officers and forcing them to exercise that rigid supervision which alone would satisfy the provisions of the Act. He would invite the noble and learned Lord to exercise his imagination, and suppose that we were to ask China to do what was proposed, and that China was to ask reciprocity of us, what would be the condition of our Custom House officers trying to read the inscription, and to discover whether the consignment of tea came from a particular tea garden? Of course, any practical means of giving effect to what the noble and learned Lord desired to accomplish, the Government would be glad to adopt; but he did not hear anything in the speech of the noble and learned Lord which would load him to suppose that there was any available machinery at the disposal of the Foreign Office for effecting the object which he had in view.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that his observations applied more to the false marks upon goods alleged to have been sent from this country The marks upon English and German goods wore as well known in China and Japan as in this country, and the Custom House officers would be perfectly competent to see whether they were false or not. He thought the several Governments might be brought to agree to take measures to put a stop to false marks.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—RULES OF DEBATE.—RESOLUTION.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I shall not detain the House for many minutes. It is unnecessary to point out again in what sense, for what purpose and with a view to what approaching controversy I have ventured

1263
to approach the topic of the Standing I Orders. As regards this proposal every one knows that according to established usages in both Houses of Parliament a reply is given to the Mover of a Bill or Resolution, in order that he may defend himself and his proposal against the criticisms they have possibly elicited. That object is of course frustrated when, after the reply, now speeches are delivered. The Mover then replies again, and the debate may thus go on for over. On June 20th, 1884, there was a discussion in this House, and after the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) who brought it on replied, 12 speeches were delivered, the result being that the noble Earl had to reply three times over. It curiously happens that on Monday, 19th, we are going to renew the same discussion under the same auspices. It will not be denied, therefore, that such a Standing Order would be both apposite and practical. Of course, anyone who rises after the reply may now be called to Order; but not so easily as if the regulation can be cited. When the Speaker cannot interfere and no one else is bound to do so, regulation is more necessary. If this Standing Order is adopted some improvement will arise; if it is not, a further argument for salutary change will be created. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
Moved, as a new Standing Order—
"That where the House permits reply upon a motion or a Bill to the Peer who brought it forward, the debate shall not be continued after the reply is over."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that no difficulty was experienced under the present system, and he did not think that the new Standing Order proposed by the noble Lord was desirable.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: In the case referred to by the noble Marquess the statement could not, is I understand it, be considered a reply, lint I will not divide the House upon this question against the judgment of its Leader.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.

  MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE.
  Message of the House of Commons of Tuesday last on the subject of Private Bill Legislation, considered (according to order).
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY), in rising to move—
  "That a Committee he appointed, to consist of Six Lords, to join with the Committee of the House of Commons, as mentioned in the said Message, to examine into the present system of Private Bill legislation, and to report how far and in what manner, without prejudice to public interests, that system may he modified with a view to the interests of suitors, the economy of the time of Parliament, and the reduction of costs and charges,"
  said, he had heard of a case of a Bill promoted by a Local Board in which there was no opposition, and yet the expense incurred in Private Bill legislation amounted to no less than £1,400. He could not help thinking that the Houses of the Legislature should take some steps to remedy that state of things. There was, he believed, a very strong feeling North of the Tweed that witnesses were often brought up an unnecessary distance and at an unnecessary expense. How far it would be possible to modify the present system and to settle matters of that kind upon the spot he did not know, but, at all events, it was a grievance which it was worth while to consider.
  Moved, "That a Committee he appointed, to consist of Six Lords, to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as mentioned in the said Message, to examine into the present system of Private Bill legislation, and to report how far and in what manner, without prejudice to public interests, that system may be modified with a view to the interests of suitors, the economy of the time of Parliament, and the reduction of costs and charges."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that those on his side of the House very heartily concurred in the Motion of the noble Marquess. He thought that on this point they might safely take a stop in the direction of Home Rule. He certainly thought it would be far better if local assemblies were left to manage some of the affairs which were now brought to the attention of Parliament, so as to avoid the great expense which

  1265
  was now incurred. He thought such a course would have a very widespread effect. The subject had been over and over again brought before Parliament, though no satisfactory result had been produced. His own feeling was that the present system was far too complicated and tedious and involved very large expenditure indeed. He thought some better and quicker system might very easily be devised, without any injury to Parliament and with advantage to all concerned.
  Motion agreed to: A message sent to the Commons in answer to their message of Tuesday last to inform them that this House has appointed a Committee to consist of Six Lords to join with the Committee of the House of Commons.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law with respect to the appliances to be carried by British merchant ships for saving life at sea—Was presented by the Earl of Onslow; read 1a.—(No. 43.)
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.