Sitting of 22 March 1888

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Henry John Brinsley Manners, commonly called Marquess of Granby, for the County of Leicester (Eastern or Melton Division).
SELECT COMMITTEE—Emigration and Immigration (Foreigners); Mr. Cremer and Mr. Samuel Hoare added.
PUBLIC BILLs—Resolution in Committee—Customs, Isle of Man—R.P.
Ordered—First Reading—Secondary Education
(Scotland) * [187]; Legal Proceedings (Reports)* [188]; Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878, Amendment * [189].
Second Reading—Criminal Evidence * [132]; Statute Law Revision * [186]; Mortmain and Charitable Uses * [174]; Westminster Abbey * [165], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Army (Annual) * [179].
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 1)*; National Debt (Conversion) * [164], and passed.
Withdrawn—Land Law (Ireland) Act (1887) Amendment (Arrears of Rent) * [147]; Railway Regulation* [84].

QUESTIONS

  MUNICIPAL TOLLS ON GRAIN—CORPORATION OF GUILDFORD.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the President of the

  21
  Board of Trade, If it is a fact that the Corporation of Guildford levies a toll on all wheat and other grain, whether British grown or foreign, brought into the municipal market for sale; to what purposes the proceeds are devoted; if any complaint, by either producers, middlemen, or local consumers, has been received upon the subject; and, if there are any other City, Borough, or Harbour Authorities in the United Kingdom, besides the Corporation of London, who, being duly empowered by law, levy a duty upon imports of grain into the locality under their jurisdiction for local purposes?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): With regard to the first part of the Question, the Town Clerk of Guildford informs the Board of Trade that a toll is taken, not on all wheat and other grain brought into the market at Guildford, but only on all wheat sold in the market. This toll is one pint per sack; and the corn taken as toll is ultimately sold, and the proceeds paid into the Treasurer of the Borough to the credit of the Borough Fund—that is, the proceeds are devoted in aid of the borough rate. No complaint has, to the Town Clerk's knowledge, been made to the Corporation by either producers, middlemen, or local consumers on the subject of this toll. With regard to the latter part of the Question—namely, as to whether duties on grain brought into a particular locality are levied by other City, Borough, or Harbour Authorities in the country—the Board of Trade are aware that such duties are levied by some Harbour Authorities, and they believe they are levied by other City and Borough Authorities as regards articles brought into markets; but they have no official information in detail as to what is done by cities and boroughs. As the hon. Member is aware, a Royal Commission is now inquiring as to market rights and tolls.

  BRITISH INDIA—ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY.
  MR. SLAGGasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will provide, for the use of hon. Members of this House, a map showing the additions that have been made to the territory of British India
  22
  since 1870, by annexation and otherwise; and providing references to the various Treaties, arrangements, and Proclamations under which those additions have been effected?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The only additions of any importance made to the territory of British India since 1870 are Upper Burmah and the districts on the North-Western Frontier. There may have been trifling rectifications of frontier elsewhere, by exchange with Native States, as to which no certain information could be given without reference to India. A map will be prepared and laid upon the Table showing the districts added last year on the North-Western Frontier, with the references asked for. But it is impossible to do the same thing in reference to Upper Burmah, as the frontier still remains to be marked out by the Commission agreed to in the Convention with China of 1886.

  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MR. WATERS, COUNTY COURT JUDGE OF WATERFORD, &c.
  CAPTAIN M `CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has been drawn to the numerous instances in which the decisions of Mr. Waters, County Court Judge for the Counties of Waterford, Leitrim, and Cavan, in the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction entrusted to Chairmen of Quarter Sessions by the Land Act of 1887, have been reversed by Mr. Justice Andrews at the County Cavan Spring Assizes; and, whether he has any power of providing for the consistent administration of justice?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: County Court Judges hold during good behaviour, and the Lord Chancellor has no jurisdiction to interfere with them in the exercise of their judicial discretion. All suitors dissatisfied with the decisions of a County Court Judge in Civil cases can appeal to the Judge of Assize, a right which appears to have been availed of in the instances referred to.

  CHILDREN'S DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES ACT, 1879—EXHIBITION IN THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the public exhibitions of young children in acrobatic and other performances apparently dangerous to the life and limbs of children now taking place in the Metropolis, If it is the duty of the Metropolitan Police, or of the Metropolitan Board of Works, or of what other Public Authority, to take action, where necessary, under the provisions of "The Children's Dangerous Performances Act, 1879?"
  THE SECRETARY or STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Statute referred to does not give the power, or impose the duty, of taking action upon the police or the Metropolitan Board of Works or any Public Authority. The Act leaves it open to any person, or Society, to initiate a prosecution in a proper case. I understand that there is a Society which has occasionally taken proceedings under this Act.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—FAIR RENTS—SUB-COMMISSION IN LONDONDERRY.
  MR. LEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How soon a Sub-Commission will sit in the County of Londonderry to hear applications for a fair rent under the provisions of the Land Act of last year?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners inform me that they have not fixed the date for the next sitting of a Sub-Commission in the County Londonderry.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES—MILLBANK PENITENTIARY.
  MR. WHITMOREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, and when, it is intended to remove Millbank Penitentiary from its present site; and, whether, in the event of its removal, the Government will endeavour to give effect to the suggestion contained in the Report of
  24
  the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, that this site should be used for "workmen's dwellings and for open spaces connected there-with"?
  THE SECRETARY or STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; it is intended to discontinue the use of Millbank Penitentiary in the course of the present year. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will endeavour to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners on this head, so far as they can consistently with the provisions of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—JOHN CLARKE AND WIFE, PRISONERS IN SLIGO GAOL.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it true that John Clarke, of Cornakelly, County Longford, and his wife are at present undergoing a term of imprisonment in Sligo Gaol; when, and by whom, were they committed; what is their offence; and, how long are they to be kept in prison?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: It is the case that the prisoners referred to are in custody in Sligo Gaol. They were committed on the 23rd of August, 1887, by order of the Land Judges for re-taking forcible possession of their holding after they had been evicted by the Sheriff of Longford. They will be released at the expiration of 12 months from the date of their conviction, or on payment of the rent and costs.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the order of committal prescribe their release on payment of the rent and costs?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I cannot say.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman repeat that portion of his answer which gave the payment of the rent and costs as a condition precedent to the release?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: They are committed for contempt of Court.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman repeat the latter part of his answer?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I stated that they would be released in 12 months, or on payment of the rent and costs due.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state what is the ransom which will procure their release?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: No, Sir; certainly not, without Notice.

  BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1383—DEPUTY OFFICIAL RECEIVERS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the fact that the powers to appoint Deputy Official Receivers are limited by "The Bankruptcy Act, 1883," to a period not exceeding two months, and that such appointments were intended to be temporary only, he will state for what period or periods a deputy, and who, has been appointed for the Official Receiver for Guildford; and, what steps are taken by the Board of Trade before they nominate a deputy to satisfy themselves that he is a fit person?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): There is at present no Deputy Official Receiver at Guildford; but the Board of Trade have, from time to time, appointed Mr. Britten, the Chief Clerk of the Official Receiver, to act as deputy during his temporary absence, as provided by the Bankruptcy Act. In no case has such appointment exceeded the period of two months specified by the Act. Before any such authority is granted the Board of Trade invariably require a Report upon the qualifications of the Official Receiver's nominee.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSION IN MONAGHAN.
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When a Sub Commission Court sat under the Land Act in Monaghan; whether he is aware that a large number of tenants served originating notices before November last, and that, although entitled to a reduced rent if decreed by the Court, they are being called upon to pay the full year's rent; and, if he will take steps to expedite the settlement of these cases?
  MR. P. O'BRIENalso asked, when the Land Sub-Commission will sit in Clones, County Monaghan?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners inform me that a Sub-Commission sat in the County Monaghan during the months of October, November, and December last. No date has yet been fixed for the next sitting. It appears that on one estate in the county a number of tenants served originating notices before November last, and have been called upon to pay the full year's rent; but that, pending the decision of the Court, 20 per cent reduction is allowed to those who pay their rents within a specified time. As I stated in the House the day before yesterday, the Government are anxiously considering the question of the existing arrears in applications awaiting a hearing.

  HARBOURS OF REFUGE—THE BRISTOL CHANNEL.
  LORD HENRY BRUCEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether there is any intention of the Government to act upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1859, and of more than one Select Committee, to construct a Harbour of Refuge in the Bristol Channel; and, if so, when it will be commenced; what has been the loss of vessels and lives in the Bristol Channel since the Royal Commission recommended the construction of this Harbour of Refuge; and, whether it is a fact that the shipping trade of the Bristol Channel is at the present moment at least one-fifth part of the whole of England?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The matter to which the noble Lord refers is one in which, as one of the Members for Bristol, I am naturally much interested. I am sorry that I cannot give him the number of vessels lost in the Bristol Channel; but the number of lives lost by wrecks and casualties (excluding collisions and missing vessels) since 1859 is 1,314. The noble Lord is correct in supposing that the shipping trade of the Bristol Channel is about one-fifth part of that of the whole of England. As regards the intentions of the Government, I am

  27
  afraid, notwithstanding what I have stated, that I can only repeat that the Government have no intention of departing from the policy pursued by successive Governments in past years, under which they have hitherto declined to make grants of money for harbour construction except in cases of Imperial and National necessity.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION) BILL—SMALL ANNUITANTS.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can include in the Conversion Scheme a clause by which annuitants of from £20 to £100 per annum shall be provided against any loss in their income, thereby preventing distress and embarrassment, by increasing their poverty, of widows, many with children to support, and other poor people wholly dependent upon small annuities?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCIIEN)in reply, said, if the hon. Member had followed the course of the Bill dealing with the Conversion of the National Debt, he would have seen that all that could be done had been done by enabling Trustees, with regard to these annuities, to vary the investment, and to invest in the proceeds of such Stock as was liable to conversion into Stocks sanctioned by the Court of Chancery, beyond which it was impossible to go.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) ACT, 1885—ADVANCES.
  MR. YERBURGHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the statement in The Standard of the 16th instant, to the effect—
  "That of the £5,000,000 authorized by Lord Ashbourne's Act to be advanced to tenants for the purchase of their holdings, £4,500,000 had been applied for up to the end of February,"
  is correct; and, if so, whether the Government intend, during the present Session, to introduce a Bill to promote the further operation of the said Act?
  TEE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The amount applied for up to the end of February was £4,700,000; but that includes £390,000 which was re-
  28
  fused. The amount applied for and not refused is, therefore, something under the figure stated in the Question. Of this, however, only £3,680,000 has as yet been actually sanctioned; so that there remains considerably over £1,000,000 undisposed of. The Government are carefully considering the question as to the course which it may be best to pursue in these circumstances.

  POST OFFICE—ACCELERATION OF MAILS TO THE NORTH OF SCOTLAND.
  DR. CLARKasked the Postmaster General, Why the Post Office pays £2,500 a-year for an acceleration of the down London day mail from Aberdeen to Keith, where there is a limited population, and refuses to accelerate the same mail from Perth to the North, embracing a district of seven counties, containing a population of nearly 400,000 people?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The so-called acceleration of the down London day mail from Aberdeen to Keith consisted chiefly in the abolition of the interval of several hours which previously existed between the arrival of the mail train from the South at Aberdeen and the despatch Northward. The new arrangement, while effecting this object and providing for an earlier delivery of a large amount of correspondence, also secured a convenient through service for mails from Aberdeenshire to the North, viâ Inverness. The case of the down London day mail from Perth, on the Highland Railway, is very different. There is no undue detention at Perth to get rid of. The line from Perth to Thurso and Wick runs for several hundred miles through sparsely-populated districts with few towns of any considerable size except Inverness; and there is already expended on the conveyance of the mails, which includes two through mails a-day in each direction, so large a payment that no additional expense for the purpose of accelerating either service will be warranted.

  POST OFFICE—UNIFORMS IN LONDON AND EDINBURGH.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the case that vests are supplied as part of Post Office uniform to first-class postmen in London, whilst

  29
  vests, at one time supplied, are no longer supplied to first-class postmen in Edinburgh; if so, what is the reason for the discontinuance of that article of clothing in the case of Edinburgh; and, whether, if postmen can go without vests in Edinburgh, they cannot equally go without them in London?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Vests are supplied to the first-class town postmen in London. Vests have at no time been supplied to postmen in Edinburgh. Postmen in Edinburgh are supplied with a tunic which should always be worn buttoned; therefore, the necessity for a vest does not exist. Postmen in London are supplied with an open coat, for which a vest is needed; hence the difference between the two classes of uniform.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—EXTRA POLICE IN COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Sergeant Noble, of the Quinn Police Barrack, County Clare, has been looking for the site of a police hut, wherein extra police are to be placed, within sight of the priest's residence; whether the regular County Force consists of 549 men and nine officers, or about one to every 280 of the population; whether this Force is sufficient to carry out the law; and, for what purpose is it proposed to quarter extra men in sight of the priest's house?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN): (who replied) said Sir, I am informed that the sergeant referred to did look for a site for a police hut at a place which happens to be within view of the priest's residence; but that circumstance had nothing whatever to do with its selection. The nominal County Force consists of 549 men and nine officers, or about one man to every 257 of the population. The portion of the Force available for Quinn and its neighbourhood has recently been obliged to be frequently strengthened by sending extra police there to suppress illegal meetings; and to obviate the necessity and expense of sending these men the Divisional Magistrate has been considering the question of quartering a reserve force in the locality, which will be chargeable therewith.
  MR. DILLON: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House, whether any illegal meetings have been held in that district; and, whether any crime or outrage has recently taken place in the district?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Illegal meetings have been hold—or are reported to have been held—in the district.
  MR. DILLON: Do I understand the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that because meetings have been reported to have been held extra police have been sent in? I would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he stated to me in this House, only a fortnight ago, that these reports would not be accepted as evidence that the meetings were held.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The evidence we have is statements that meetings have been held; and that meetings will be held, no matter whether extra police are brought in or not.

  EGYPT—THE NEW EGYPTIAN LOAN.
  MR. DILLONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in Sir Evelyn Baring's last Despatch to the Marquess of Salisbury, to the effect that the new Egyptian Loan was to be for £E5,000,000; and, whether this is true; and, if so, for what purposes the money is required?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The exact amount of the new Loan, as has been already stated, has not been positively settled, so far, at least, as Her Majesty's Government are aware. The chief objects are those already explained—namely, to carry out the arrangement made with the ex-Khedive and his family, which requires the liberation of lands pledged in security for the Domains Loan; and, secondly, to liberate lands similarly pledged to be granted to pensioners in commutation of their allowances. It will depend on the amount of the Loan how far the operation of converting pensions into grants of Domain Land is carried. As such conversions operate to the relief of the Egyptian Exchequer, the operation is, from a financial point of view, sound and desirable, provided the Loan can be effected on advantageous terms.
  Mr. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what position the new Loan will hold with regard to the Privileged Unified Loan?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The now Loan must rank after the old one.

  POST OFFICE—AUSTRALIAN AND CAPE LETTERS—OVERWEIGHT.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, Has his attention been called to the fact that, if any letter posted for Australia or the Cape of Good Hope happens to weigh a grain over half an ounce, the charge for postage is doubled—that is, from 6d. to 1s.; and, has he any intention to alter this Regulation, or consult with the Colonial Governments on the question?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): It is quite true that a letter exceeding the prescribed weight allowed for a single rate of postage is charged an additional postage rate. This Rule applies generally to letters for all parts of the world, and not alone to Australia and the Cape of Good Hope. Obviously, a limit of weight must be fixed in all cases; and I have no intention, as at present advised, of proposing any exception from the practice which has universally obtained with respect to this matter.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE GRANTHAM BOROUGH BENCH—HEAVY SENTENCE.
  MR. CHANNING(for Mr. BROADHURST)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a sentence of seven days' hard labour, passed by the Grantham Borough Bench upon an old man of 73 years of age, for the offence of going into a greengrocer's shop and begging for an onion; and, if so, whether he can consider the advisability of mitigating this sentence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received a Report from the convicting magistrate on this case, from which it appears that this man has been well known to the police and to the magistrate personally for many years as a regular and persistent able-bodied beggar. I am told that he has for a
  32
  long time been a nuisance to passengers in the streets, to tradesmen, and especially to females. Frequent complaints of his conduct have been made to the police. He gave his ago to the police as 67, and not 73. Under the circumstances, I cannot advise any interference with the sentence.

  INDIA—THE IRRAWADDY FLOTILLA.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will consent to a Return showing the amounts paid during the past three years by the Government of India to the Irrawaddy Flotilla; and, in what respect, under what conditions, and for what services, such moneys have been paid?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Secretary of State will consult the Government of India as to the expediency of having such a Return prepared. It would take some time, as the information would have to be procured from Burmah. The moneys are paid under contract with the Company for the conveyance of mails, troops, stores, prisoners, police, &c.
  MR. BRADLAUGHinquired, whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that great dissatisfaction was expressed in Burmah and India as to the amounts received by the Company?
  SIR JOHN GORST: No; I cannot admit that fact.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—CONVICTIONS AT BALLINAMORE BRIDGE.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Messrs. Ferguson and Finlay, who were prosecuted at the late Petty Sessions at Ballinamore Bridge, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, for speaking at a meeting held at New-bridge, and the latter gentleman convicted on the evidence of constables who took no notes at the meeting; whether a car driver who refused to carry police, not having been employed for the purpose, was prevented for some time from going home by Mr. Purcell, R.M., and his horse and car forcibly seized; under what statute Mr. Purcell acted in having

  33
  him detained; whether, in the disturbance which took place in consequence of the action of the police, several parties were arrested; whether the prisoners were assaulted by the police on their way to and while in the barrack in custody; whether Mr. Purcell refused substantial bail for the appearance of the prisoners, both on that occasion and after two subsequent remands; and, whether the prisoners will have been detained a month in custody before the date of the monthly Petty Sessions?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The prosecutions referred to were for speeches urging the people to enter into an unlawful conspiracy. Finlay was convicted on the evidence of the police, who had noted the proceedings immediately after the meeting at which he spoke. As regards the car driver, he had been employed by Mr. Beckett, one of the Resident Magistrates, to convey him between Ballinasloe and Ballinamore; but he refused to drive him back to Ballinasloe, as the Resident Magistrate wished to have a constable accompanying him. Mr. Beckett was, therefore, obliged to proceed by another car, along with the Sessional Crown Solicitor, who had conducted the prosecution. The demeanour of the car driver in question was offensive and defiant; and Mr. Purcell did not consider it advisable to allow him to follow immediately after the two gentlemen named, as his doing so would have led to a hostile demonstration and a breach of the peace, as at the time a great many people were about. Mr. Purcell accordingly detained him for about 15 minutes. He did so by virtue of his office as a magistrate, and to prevent a breach of the peace. A policeman who got upon the car was savagely attacked by a number of men with sticks and severely injured. Other members of the constabulary were struck with stones, and otherwise assaulted. For these assaults four men were arrested and remanded for a week to Galway Prison. There does not appear to be any ground for the allegation of an assault by the police. The attack upon the police was wanton and unprovoked. The Resident Magistrate did refuse bail. The prisoner's solicitor, in making application for a consent to bail on the
  34
  expiration of the first remand, stated in his letter that if the bail were refused the Queen's Bench would interfere; but he does not appear to have brought the matter before that Court. The prisoners will have been detained a month in custody, if not discharged before next Petty Sessions at Ballinamore.
  MR. HAYDEN: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman deny that the prisoners were assaulted after arrest by the police in the barrack?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have no information to the effect that they were. I know that the police were violently assaulted before.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "HERO."
  MR. LEATHAM BRIGHTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Government is aware that iron girders have been placed under the engines of the Hero for the purpose of strengthening them; whether those girders have been placed in position by the responsible engineers of the Government; and who is to bear the expense of the alteration?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Some small additional strengthening brackets have been fitted to the engine bearers of the Hero. Being part of the hull structure, they were fitted in place by the Dockyard; and as all work on engine bearers, including these additions, is outside the engine contract, the expense is borne by the Admiralty.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—THE LAKE IN BATTERSEA PARK.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether he is aware that the Lake in Battersea Park is in a foul and dangerous state, and contains 19 inches of silt and mud; and, whether it is the intention of the Metropolitan Board of Works to remedy the evil without delay?
  MR. TATTON EGERTONin reply, said, that the Metropolitan Board of Works was aware of the bad condition of the Lake; and measures would be immediately taken by the Board to clear away the deposit from the bottom of the Lake, and to restore the piece of Ornamental Water to a good condition.

  TORQUAY HARBOUR AND DISTRICT ACT, 1886—THE SALVATION ARMY.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received a statement, signed by 500 ratepayers of Torquay, as follows:—
  "That we have known the Salvation Army to conduct marches with music through the streets of our town on Sundays and week days, ever since the commencement of their services here six years ago; that we did not know that it was proposed to insert in the Torquay Harbour and District Act, 1886, any clause prohibiting such marches, and that such clause only came to our knowledge after the passing of the Act; that it is not our wish that any member of the Salvation Army should be fined or imprisoned for taking part in such processions;"
  and, whether he would be prepared to consider the advisability of a Standing Order relating to Private Bills which should require that any Bill containing Police Clauses should bear the word "Police" in its title?
  THE SECRETARY or STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received a statement to the effect described in the Question. The hon. Member is, doubtless, aware that by Standing Order 173a Committees of this House are required to bring clauses of this kind to the notice of the House by specially reporting upon them; and by Standing Order 33a, passed last year at the instance of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), Bills proposing to create—
  "Powers relating to Police or Sanitary Regulations which deviate from or are repugnant to the general laws,"
  have to be deposited at the Home Office. In the case of the Torquay Bill, 1886, the Home Office reported against the clause in question, on the ground that it was—
  "A question for general legislation and should be struck out."
  I do not see that the proposal of the hon. Member would add much to these existing safeguards; but if he will place on the Paper such a Standing Order as he suggests, I shall be glad to consult with the Authorities of the House as to the propriety of its passing.

  THE LICENSING LAWS—CLUBS.
  MR. ADDISONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, having regard to
  36
  the proposals for diminishing the number of licensed public houses, it is the intention of the Government, during the present Session, to bring in a Bill dealing with Clubs in which intoxicating liquors are sold, with a view to diminishing their number, and placing them under the like restrictions and charges as public houses?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The question is how to deal with Bogus Clubs, of which complaint is so justly made, without unduly interfering with the bonâ fide Club. It is a very important question; but it is also one very difficult of solution. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, the Government has been considering the matter, and is still considering it; and I shall be very glad, indeed, if we can see any way of dealing with it.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.
  BARON DIMSDALE (Herts, Hitchin) (for Mr. KENYON)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the proposals made by the President of the Local Government Board, which may affect the position of the Metropolitan Board of Works, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to persevere with the appointment of a Royal Commission; and, whether any steps will be taken to limit the powers of the Board, ad interim, as regards their expenditure on sewerage experiments?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; certainly. The Government were aware of these proposals when they assented to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the past working of the Board. The Government are not in possession of any information to justify their interference with the progress of any works now being undertaken by the Board.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, if the right hon. Gentleman would state the names of the Commissioners the Government proposed to appoint, and when the Bill would be introduced into the House; or, if he could not answer the Questions now, when would he be able to do so? He would remind the right hon. Gentle-

  37
  man that five weeks or more had elapsed since the promise of the Government was made.
  MR. MATTHEWS: In answer to my noble Friend, I have to state that the Commissioners have been appointed. They are Lord Herschell, who presides over the Commission, a well-known and eminent Queen's Counsel; Mr. Bosanquet; and a Director of the Bank of England, Mr. Henry Grenfell. Instructions have been given for drafting the Bill to constitute the Commission, and it will be brought forward with as little dely as possible.
  MR. FIRTHasked, whether the inquiry respecting the Metropolitan Board of Works would be retrospective?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, his recollection was that the Reference to the Commission was precisely in the terms of the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill)—an inquiry "into the working" of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He understood that would include the whole of the working from the beginning; but he assumed the Commissioners would exercise some discretion as to the manner in which they would conduct the inquiry.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—THE FRENCH PROTECTORATE OVER SENEGAL, &c.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government can communicate any information relative to the Protectorate, which it is reported the French Governor of Senegal has established, and also relative to the rule which he is endeavouring to administer over a part of the Gambia Territories, which for many years have formed part of the British Dependencies on the West Coast of Africa; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government is taking to obtain the withdrawal of French troops and the restoration of British influence in these territories?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY of STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The French have not formally declared any Protectorate in the manner stated in the Question, but have lately advanced into territories bordering on the River Gambia. They have, however, checked their progress in deference
  38
  to representations from Her Majesty's Government, with a view to friendly discussion of the question of boundaries and of spheres of influence.

  LAW AND POLICE—ASSAULTS ON CHILDREN—SENTENCE ON ANN GUTHRIE.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Ann Guthrie, charged before the magistrates at the City Police Court, at Liverpool, on Friday last, with assaulting Mary Conroy, aged 13 years; whether it was proved that Guthrie, after repeated assaults, had finally broken the child's arm by kicking; whether the magistrates informed Guthrie that she was liable to six months' imprisonment, but afterwards permitted her to leave the Court on paying a compensation of £5; and, whether he will take steps to secure the better protection of children from savage assaults resulting in serious physical injuries, by insuring that those guilty of such assaults shall be adequately punished?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received a Report from the Justices on this case, who inform me that, although the woman had struck the child repeatedly with a boot, it was not proved to their satisfaction that the child's arm had been broken by kicking. A lodger in defendant's house stated that he had not on any previous occasion known the woman to ill-use the child, who appeared to be habitually well treated. The defendant expressed regret that she had lost her temper on the occasion in question. It is true that the defendant was informed by the magistrates that she had rendered herself liable to six months' imprisonment; but as the injury seemed to them one for which the girl ought to receive compensation, and as in case of conviction she would be debarred from enforcing any such claim, they deemed it best in her interest to allow the summons to be withdrawn on payment of £5 (to be invested in the girl's name in the Post Office Savings Bank) and £1 1s. costs. The hon. Member is aware that I cannot increase the punishment imposed by magistrates in the exercise of the discretion which the law allows them.
  Mr. CHANNINGsaid, the medical testimony was to the effect that the child's arm was fractured. Would the Home Secretary take steps to prevent such cases being settled by compensation?
  MR. MATTHEWSreplied, that the information he had received as to the medical testimony was directly contrary to that of the hon. Member.

  ROYALTIES—COAL AND OTHER MINERALS.
  MR. CALEB WRIGHTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the estimated amount of royalties paid on the output on coal, ironstone, and other minerals in the United Kingdom; and, what portion, if any, of those royalties contribute towards local taxation?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, he was unable to give the Return asked for by the hon. Gentleman. The Income Tax Returns did not show the amount paid for royalties; and the Local Government Board, to whom he had applied, had no information on the subject.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, if the hon. Gentleman was aware that a single owner, in a single county, drew £140,000 a-year from royalties, and another £40,000 from way-leave rents, without contributing one farthing to local taxation?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he had no information on the matter.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether the facts he had referred to were not disclosed in a Return which had been presented to that House?
  [No reply.]

  LONDON COAL AND WINE DUES CONTINUANCE BILL.
  MR. FIRTHasked the hon. Baronet the Senior Member for the City of London, Whether, after the statement of the President of the Local Government Board last night as to the constitution of a new Metropolitan Authority, it is the intention of the Corporation of London to proceed with the Coal and Wine Dues Continuance Bill?
  MR. TATTON EGERTON(who replied) said, it was the intention of the Corporation and the Metropolitan Board of Works, the promoters of the Bill, to proceed with it.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) —PAYMENTS TO ROAD CONTRACTORS, TIPPERARY, N.R.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the moneys earned by the road contractors in the North Riding of the County of Tipperary for a period of eight months came due at the recent Assizes at Nenagh on the 5th and 6th instants, when, as usual, cheques for payment should be issued; whether these contractors, numbering over 500, mostly poor men, are yet unpaid; whether many of them reside at a distance of 20 miles from Nenagh, where they have had to come applying for their money; and, whether complaints have reached him that this is owing to the neglect of "the Clerk of the Crown and Peace" in not signing the cheques duly certified for; and, if so, whether he will have instructions issued to that official to have the payments made without further delay?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Clerk of the Crown and Peace reports that a few days must necessarily elapse after the Assizes are over before payments can be made to contractors. When the presentments are fiated by the Judge of Assize, the Secretary to the Grand Jury has to prepare a draft in favour of each contractor, which is then submitted to the Clerk of the Crown and Peace, who has to examine it carefully with the original presentment before he countersigns it. The presentments are very numerous, and necessarily require some days for examination. He does not believe there is a single contractor still unpaid. In the case of those who came to him, even before the Assizes had closed, and represented that they lived at a distance, he at once, at great personal inconvenience, examined and countersigned the drafts; and the next day, before leaving to attend the Clonmel Assizes, he signed as many drafts as were then ready. He, however, cannot undertake in future to have all the drafts ready until about one week after the Assizes are over, which appears to be also the practice in other counties; and of this the contractors have been already fully informed.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIENasked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, is it not the invariable practice that payment should be made before the expiration of Assizes; and, also, whether, under any circumstances, compensation will be made to those poor men for their loss of time and the expense that they have incurred in journeying several times to and from the Assize Court, sometimes a distance of more than 20 miles?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: So far as I can understand, an irregular and objectionable practice has prevailed in the North Riding of Tipperary—that of contractors coming and asking for payment even before the presentments have been fiated. That appears to be a very irregular proceeding, and the present Clerk of the Crown has very properly laid down another rule.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered the Question. I asked him, does he say that it was not the invariable practice to have the payments made beforehand?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I should say it was not. I do not think it possible it could have been. What I am informed is that that practice had prevailed. I suppose it began by obliging one or two contractors, and then came to be an abuse and could not be continued.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether it is not a fact that the fiating of these presentments is not the first duty that a Judge performs at the Assize?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Yes, Sir. These presentments are passed by the Grand Jury and then fiated by the learned Judge. But they have then to go through the hands of the Secretary to the Grand Jury, who has other multifarious duties to attend to, and they are then carefully revised and gone through by the Clerk of the Crown. As I have already explained, it is manifestly impossible to have all these duties performed in a short time.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION) BILL—SMALL HOLDERS.
  MR. F. S. POWELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether any information will be circulated by the Post Office to the holders of small
  42
  amounts of Government Securities with reference to the conversion; and, whether instructions have been given to secure the full and effective publication of this information, by notices exhibited at the Post Offices and otherwise?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): A Memorandum giving full information on the subject has been printed by my direction, and this will be exhibited at all Post Offices, and copies will be supplied to Postmasters, &c., for distribution.

  CHINA (INLAND NAVIGATION)—THE YANGTSZE KIANG.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL (Liverpool, Kirkdale) (for Sir RICHARD TEMPLE)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state the latest result of the communications between the British Representatives and the Chinese Authorities on the Yangtsze Kiang regarding the upward passage of the British steamer now lying near the rapids of that River?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The latest information received on this subject from Her Majesty's Minister in China is dated the 19th instant, to the effect that in the early part of last month the Yâmen had caused a Proclamation to be issued by the Authorities at Tchang, warning the public that a steamer would start on the journey to Ching King, on the Upper Yangtsze River; that the steamer had a right to do so; that native interests would not suffer thereby; and that any attempt at interference would be severely punished.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPLICATIONS FOR "FAIR RENTS."
  MR. M`CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the list of fair rent cases to be heard at Banbridge on the 4th of April next does not include any of the applications made immediately before the 1st of November last by tenants on the estates of Baron Trevor and the other large landed proprietors in the County of Down; whether he can state why, contrary to precedent, the Banbridge

  43
  list includes a large number of applications from Downpatrick Union, and why no special list was published for Downpatrick; and, if he can say at what dates sittings of a Sub-Commission will be held to hear the fair rent applications of the leaseholders and present tenants from the Unions of Banbridge and Downpatrick who are entitled to the benefit of the reduction in respect of the half-year's rent due at 1st November last?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners are at present on Circuit in the County Clare, and they are unable to furnish the required information until Saturday next.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) ACT, 1885—THE TENANTS OF THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY, CO. DOWN.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the two Circulars recently sent to the County Down tenants of the Lord Lieutenant, signed by His Excellency's land agent, Mr. Brownlow, in which the Marquess of Londonderry holds out strong inducements to the tenants to purchase their holdings, and declares his inability to continue to give to his tenants the reduction—
  "Which he has granted the last two years, and by giving which he has received absolutely nothing from his own property;"
  whether he is aware that owing to charges on the Londonderry estates created by the late Marquess of Londonderry, and not on account of any default on the part of the tenants, or by reason of any benefits given to them by the landlord, this inability to accept a reduced rent arises; and, whether, considering that according to present arrangements none of the fair rent applications made by the tenants of the Marquess of Londonderry are to be listed for hearing at the first sitting of the County Down Sub-Commission at Newtownards in May next, and considering that nearly 4,000 applications from County Down still remain unheard, he will now take steps to have an additional Sub-Commission appointed for that county?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: My attention has been called to the Circulars in question through the hon. Member who puts this Question sending them to me. I have no knowledge as to whether the inability to accept a reduced rent arises from charges on the estate created by the late owner or otherwise. As has been stated, the Government are anxiously considering the steps to be taken to deal with the arrears of business in the Land Commission.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CONVICTION OF JOHN RUSSELL AT BIRMINGHAM ASSIZES.
  SIR JOHN COMMERELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been drawn to the report of the trial at Birmingham Assizes of John Russell, aged 60, alias Cooper and "Australian Jemmy," who was sentenced to 15 years' penal servitude for burglariously entering the house of Dr. Robins, surgeon, Grantham Road, Birmingham, when Mr. Justice Smith, in passing sentence, said the prisoner had been twice sentenced to transportation for life, and also to 10 years' penal servitude for burglary with violence; and, since after two life sentences he has been set at liberty, when under the present system this offender will be again at large?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): This convict's career is remarkable. In 1850 he was sentenced to transportation for life for burglary. This sentence was reduced to one of 10 years by the Secretary of State in 1853, at the end of which time he was pardoned. It 1861 he was again sentenced to transportation for life for wounding with intent; but he seems to have escaped from Australia by some means or other, for in 1875 he was sentenced in this country to 10 years' penal servitude for sacrilege. He served the whole of this sentence, and he is now again under a sentence of 15 years. In the ordinary course, if he behaves well, he will be due for release in 11 years five months, unless, possibly, the life sentence were to be enforced.

  INLAND REVENUE—EXCISE LICENCES—THE EMPIRE THEATRE, LEICESTER SQUARE.
  DR. CLARKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Excise Authorities are aware that wines, spirits, and beer are nightly sold by retail at the Empire Theatre, Leicester Square, London, no magistrates' licence having been granted for the sale of excisable articles upon such premises; why the persons concerned in such sales have not been proceeded against by the Excise Authorities; and, whether it is the intention of the Authorities to institute proceedings?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are aware that intoxicating liquors are sold by retail at the Empire Theatre. After the theatre had been licensed by the Justices as a place of public entertainment, an application was made to the Commissioners to issue an Excise licence for the sale of liquors there under Section 7 of the Act 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 39; but the Commissioners were advised that since the passing of the Licensing Act of 1872, they had ceased to have the power to issue a licence in England under that section for any place except a theatre. The point, however, is not free from doubt; and a Rule Nisi for a mandamus to compel the Commissioners to issue the licence was granted by the Court of Queen's Bench on the 13th of December last. Upon service of this Rule the Commissioners felt they were not justified in objecting to the sale of liquors, or in taking any steps which might have the effect of postponing the opening of the house, and throwing a large number of persons out of employment. They, therefore, accepted a deposit of the amount of duty which would be payable on the licence, pending the argument of the Rule. It is expected that the Rule will come on for argument in the course of next month.
  Dr. CLARKasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that last year an application was made to the magistrates for a licence, which was refused, and that power was only given to the Commissioners to grant a special licence of three days, and that those
  46
  three days had been going on ever since Christmas of last year?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Commissioners have not granted a licence, but a Rule Nisi for a mandamus to compel them to do so has been granted; and it is in consequence of that that the sale of intoxicating liquors at the theatre has been permitted. If the Commissioners are held to have been right in refusing the licence, of course the sale will be stopped.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION) BILL—REDEMPTION OF UNCONVERTED STOCKS.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in order that holders of Consols and Reduced Stock may know exactly what is the alternative to immediate conversion of their Stocks into new Stock, he will state whether a year's notice will be given immediately after the 11th May of the redemption of all or any unconverted Stocks; and, if not, when it will be given; and, is another Act of Parliament necessary to enable the notice to be given, or to redeem the Stocks not now converted; and, if so, whether he proposes to introduce the Bill during this Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I am unable to state at present when or where this notice will be given. I shall not be able to make such a statement until the result of the conversion of the New Threes is practically known and decided. Another Act of Parliament is not necessary to give the notice, but a Resolution of the House would be necessary; and I hope, within a short time, to be able to state whether I shall propose to the House to pass that Resolution or not.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any Act of Parliament is necessary to redeem the Stock.
  MR. GOSCHEN: A Resolution of notice for paying off the Stock by instalments is sufficient for the purpose; but if larger measures were proposed, it might to necessary to pass an Act of Parliament to direct the mode and manner in which the payment should be made.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE COUNTY COUNCILS.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he could lay upon the Table before the Easter Recess a Paper showing the probable number of members of the County Councils for each of the counties in England and Wales under the new Local Government Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): No, Sir; it will be impossible for us to lay this on the Table before Easter. It is a matter which necessitates much investigation. I will, however, undertake to lay it on the Table before the Bill leaves Committee.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE EDENDERRY UNION.
  Dr. FOXasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When he can arrange for the Land Commissioners to hear the large number of cases in the Edenderry Union, and so relieve the tenants from the hardships of further delay?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: A Sub-Commission will sit next month for that portion of the Edenderry Union which is in the County Meath. No sitting has yet been fixed for the other portions of the Union.
  DR. FOX: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that nearly four years have elapsed since a sitting has been held in the King's County Division, or know that there are several hundred cases to be disposed of?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will put a Notice on the Paper I will make inquiries.
  MR. T. M. MEALY: This is a matter of very great importance. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated several times that the Government were giving their most anxious consideration to this vital question. ["Order, order!"] If necessary, I will move the adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to the question as a matter of urgent public im
  48
  portance. I wish to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if he can give us any idea, as it is four years since the Sub-Commissioners sat in Edenderry Union, when his anxious consideration and the anxious consideration of the Government is supposed to begin, and when it is likely to come to a conclusion?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I should be exceedingly surprised if I discovered that it was four years, or anything approaching four years, since the Sub-Commissioners sat in the King's County Division of the Edenderry Union.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It is now four weeks ago since the right hon. and gallant Gentleman told me that the Government were anxiously considering whether they should increase the number of Sub-Commissioners. I wish to know whether the Government are not only going to take the question into consideration, but are going to keep it there?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, as the Head of Her Majesty's Government, for an answer in reference to this important question, the delay in reference to which, he must be aware, is causing a number of tenants to be turned into caretakers. When will Her Majesty's Government be able to appoint a sufficient number of Sub-Commissioners to deal with the glut of Land Commissioners' work which now prevails in Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): This matter has received, and is receiving, the very serious consideration of the Government, who are desirous of dealing with the question at the earliest possible moment. But it is one which requires very careful consideration. [An hon. MEMBER: Ten years.] Having regard to the fact that the Land Commission itself is on the point of expiring, there will be no delay whatever in dealing with the matter.

  SCOTLAND—CROFTERS AND COTTARS IN ELGIN, &c.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Lord Advocate, Will the Government agree to a Return of the number of Crofters and Cottars in the Counties of Elgin, Nairn, Banff, Aberdeen, Perth, and Stirling?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): As I have repeatedly stated in this House, the expressions "crofter" and "cottar" do not convey the same meaning in different parts of Scotland. Such a Return as the hon. Member proposes would, therefore, be misleading. Besides, there is no machinery for taking such a Return, and the Government, therefore, cannot assent to it.
  MR. ANDERSONasked, whether the words did not convey the same meaning in the Counties of Elgin and Nairn, Banff and Aberdeen.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he could not name the counties; but it was undoubtedly the case that the words had not the same meaning in all the counties referred to in the Question.

  IRELAND—THE ENGLISH DEPUTATION.
  MR. FENWICKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that an English deputation who recently visited Ireland were watched and followed from place to place by policemen and detectives; if so, whether such a course was taken at the request of Her Majesty's Government; whether any Reports were made to the Government; and, whether such Reports will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: If the hon. Member is so good as to mention the English deputation to which he refers, I shall be glad to give him the information.

  ORDER (METROPOLIS)—THE SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will state the total cost incurred in consequence of the recent swearing-in of special constables within the Metropolitan District; and, whether he will lay upon the Table an account of the items of expenditure?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS)in reply, said, the total cost incurred was a frac
  50
  tion over £1,500, of which £1,033 odd were for truncheons and badges, and somewhat under £100 for rent and lighting of offices, and miscellaneous expenses made up the balance. He did not think any useful purpose would be served by laying the accounts on the Table.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—DELAYS IN THE CITY OF LONDON COURT.
  MR. FIRTHasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to a Petition, recently presented to the Lord Chancellor, in reference to delays in the conduct of business in the City of London Court; and, whether he is able to say whether the Government intend to take any action in the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): My attention has been called to the Petition referred to in the Question of the hon. Member. It is certainly signed by gentlemen who have great experience with reference to business in the City of London Court. The matter is under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, and I will see that the attention of the City Authorities is also called to the Petition.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS—MEMBERS' PLACES.
  MR. H. GARDNERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to the inconvenience at present existing with regard to Members serving on Select Committees who wish to secure places in the House; and, whether he will give facilities for the discussion of the new Rule of Procedure on that subject standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hereford (Sir Joseph Bailey), and the Amendment thereto by the hon. Member for North Essex.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH)(in reply) said, he was aware that hon. Gentlemen serving on Select Committees were exposed to considerable inconvenience in regard to the seats they desired to occupy in the House. He thought the question was one which deserved consideration. He hoped the Motion of the hon. Member for Hereford would be reached in time. Any assistance he

  51
  could give in the solution of the difficulty would be heartily given.

  CIVIL SERVANTS AND POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is any general official objection, pending the decision of the Royal Commission on Civil Service Departments, to any Civil Servant in this country being a member of the "Irish National League of Great Britain;" and, whether the question is left by the Treasury to be separately decided by the Heads of the several Departments?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): No circumstances have as yet come to my knowledge which would require special Regulations to be issued as to Civil Servants joining the National League of Great Britain. As I have before stated, much must be left to the discretion of Civil Servants themselves; and, while we strongly deprecate overt acts indicating violent partizanship, we are unwilling to attempt too vigorously to define the precise limits within which the political opinion of Civil servants may legitimately find expression.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would say specifically whether it as left to the discretion of the Heads of different Departments to decide whether A. might belong to the Primrose League and that B could not belong to the National League of Great Britain?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not think that any such authority exists with the Heads of Departments as that which is suggested by the Question of the hon. Gentleman.
  Subsequently,
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that as he had not been able to obtain a clear idea of the answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman another Question. It was this—whether those Members of the Civil Service of Great Britain, many in number, who belonged to the National League, were by so belonging infringing any Rule which exists in the Civil Service generally; and, whether they are to look to the Treasury for legality for their position, or look to the Heads of their several Departments?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was sorry he could not add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have not given him Notice, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to initiate legislation to carry out the Resolution on the subject of Irish Arrears passed by this House yesterday?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): No. There is no present intention on the part of the Government to do so.
  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—APPOINTMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL JUDGE. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to an Order which stands in his name for the appointment of an additional Judge to the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, Whether it is the intention of the Government to deal with it to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Yes; unless there is a strong objection to its being proceeded with. It was represented that there was urgent necessity for additional strength.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Am I wrong in supposing that this is the first notice which the House has had of the intention of the Government in the matter? The House, up to the present time, has had no information as to the intention of the Government to appoint an additional Judge, imposing a further burden of £5,000 a-year.
  MR. W. H. SMITHreplied that the Notice was put on the Paper on Tuesday last. Undoubtedly, there would be an additional charge on the Consolidated Fund.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish the House to decide absolutely to-night as to this additional appointment?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I stated that I would not press the matter if there was any strong objection.

  THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS—THE ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.
  In reply to Mr. FIRTH (Dundee),
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, he apprehended that the Royal Commission of Inquiry with reference to the Metropolitan Board of Works would retrospectively include everything from the foundation of the Board.

  MR. DILLON AND SIR MICHAEL HICKSBEACH—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol a Question in reference to a speech which he is reported to have made in the East of London last night. He is reported to have used these words—
  "Our opponents may be loyal subjects of the Queen, but it is difficult for us to understand how that loyalty is compatible with intimate association with men who—as I myself heard the other night in the House of Commons—make it a grievance that Her Majesty's soldiers should beguile a tedious march by singing 'God save the Queen,'"
  I wish, in the first place, to ask whether that is a correct report of his speech?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Yes, Sir.
  MR. DILLON: Under those circumstances, I must claim the right to address a personal explanation to the House, as I presume the charge is levelled against myself.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHassented.
  MR. DILLON: I regret to be obliged, Sir, to say that I consider it to be a very gross misrepresentation. I wish to direct the attention of the House to what the nature of the charge is. It is perfectly specific. It charges me with having made it a matter of grievance that the soldiers of the Queen should beguile a tedious march by singing "God save the Queen." What are the circumstances of which I complain? To begin with, there was no tedious march. The soldiers of the Queen were brought into Ennis on the occasion of a Nationalist demonstration of a very advanced character. Into the merits of the demonstration it is not necessary for me to
  54
  enter. They were brought to the town for the purpose of maintaining the peace of the town if the peace was disturbed; and as usual, upon such occasions, they were confined to the barracks while the demonstration was going on. I now come to what I complain of. The soldiers, instead of being confined to the barrack until the crowds had dispersed after the demonstration was over (as is usual on occasions of the kind) were marched out of the barracks while the streets were thronged by thousands of persons who were returning from the demonstration. They were marched against these thronging thousands, at the imminent danger of a collision; and while the marching was going on they sang "God save the Queen" and "Rule Britannia," and they were headed by the Resident Magistrate, who might have to sit on the Bench as Judge afterwards, who is I am informed, specially appointed to sit and adjudicate in the district. I leave it to this House, and think it is eminently a case for personal explanation, as to whether it is right for a right hon. Gentleman to so outrageously misrepresent the action of a fellow Member of this House for political purposes, and I shall merely conclude by placing the two statements side by side. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol is that I complained of Her Majesty's soldiers beguiling a weary march by singing "God save the Queen." Well, I complain of four or five things, which I shall now repeat—There was no weary march in the question at all. I complain of the soldiers being turned out of the barracks before the crowd had left the town, which they were doing peaceably. I complain of those soldiers being marched through an excited crowd when there was not a shadow of disturbance, and when they ought to have been kept in barracks; and I complain of their singing songs on that march, a course which was never pursued by soldiers in that district before, although they have been frequently brought in for a similar purpose; and, finally, I complain that a man who might be, if any riot occurred, sitting on the Bench, returning at the head of those soldiers, in the face of the people, singing "Rule Britannia." It is not a question of whether it is a right or wrong. The question is whether the

  55
  right hon. Gentleman stated what was true or not; and I have now told you what I complained of, and I leave it to the House to judge whether or not that was a fair and honest representation.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I will simply say that the hon. Member has not had the courtesy to give me private Notice of his intention to bring this matter forward, and therefore I have not been able to refer to the answer given by my right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel King-Harman) to the Question asked by the hon. Member the other night. I am, like the hon. Member, quite content to leave the matter to the judgment of the House—who know what the Question and Answer were. It is my impression that the effect of the Question and Answer is precisely what I represented.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—SALARIES OF DIVISIONAL MAGIS TRATES—LEGISLATION.
  MR. DILLONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, To inform the House when the Government proposed to introduce the Bill to legalize the payment of salaries to Divisional Magistrates in Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It will depend very much on the course of Public Business; but I hope the Bill will be brought in shortly.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION) BILL.
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jackson.)
  [BILL 164.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read (Queen's Consent, and Prince of Wales' Consent as Duke of Cornwall, signified).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. DODDSsaid, that his attention had been called that morning to the provision contained in Clause 5 as to the difficulty which would arise owing to the shortness of time allowed
  56
  to trustees under the Bill for procuring the assent of their cestui que trusts. It must be remembered that trustees were under the necessity of procuring the assent of all persons interested in the trust fund, and a great number of them might, at this season of the year, be in different parts of the world, so that their assent could not be procured in the course of a few days. Then, again, when the assent of the Judge was required before a trustee could act, the difficulty was almost greater. He assumed that it was intended to obtain the Royal Assent to the Bill on Tuesday next. He would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that on the same day the Courts would rise for the Easter Vacation, and not sit again till the 12th of April. In many cases, he apprehended that the Vacation Judge would hardly be the proper person to consider applications of this kind. Where the estate was being administered in the Court of Chancery, he apprehended that it would be necessary to apply to the Judge to whose Court the particular estate was attached. There was no chance of the application being made before the 1st of April, and if all these cases were to be left to the Vacation Judge, it was simply impossible for him to consider the numerous cases that would be brought before him. Under those circumstances, and expressing his regret that he had not been able to direct attention to the point earlier, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able, if not in that House, in "another place" to grant some extension of time within which trustees might signify their assent to the scheme, or failing to do so, be bound by the provisions of the Act. The question was one of vital importance to trustees generally, and for their sake he thought there ought to be some extension of time before this provision became law.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he rose to move the re-committal of the Bill, with a view to insert the following new Clause relating to the reinvestment of trust funds:—
  "Any trust funds now invested in New Three Pounds per Cent Stock, Consolidated Three Pounds per Cent Stock, or Reduced Three Pounds per Cent Stock may, instead of being converted under this Act, unless it is specially prohibited by the constitution or terms of the trust, be reinvested by the trustees thereof in the purchase of—

  57
  "(1.) Debenture stock of Railway Companies in Great Britain incorporated by Act of Parliament;
  "(2.) Preference guaranteed lien annuity or rent-charge stock, the dividend on which is not contingent on the profits of the year of such Railway Companies in Great Britain as have paid a dividend on their ordinary stock for ten years immediately preceding the date of investment;
  "(3.) Stock or annuities issued by any Municipal Corporation of Great Britain, which annuities or the interest or dividend upon which stock are secured upon rates or taxes levied by such Municipal Corporation under the authority of any Act of Parliament;
  "(4.) Stocks or other public funds of the government of any colony of the United Kingdom approved by the Chancery Division of the high Court of Justice, and also bonds or documents of debt of any such government approved as aforesaid, provided such stocks, bonds, or others are not payable to bearer."
  He wished to call the attention of the House shortly to a somewhat important point in regard to which he asked to extend the power of investment. Only yesterday the Government had assented to an extension in this direction by providing that trust funds might be invested as certain funds under the control of the Court of Chancery were allowed to be invested. There was a general feeling that a further privilege should be extended to trust funds dealt with by the Bill. He, therefore, asked the House to re-commit the Bill for the purpose of introducing a clause extending the power of investment to the Debenture Stock of Railway Companies in Great Britain incorporated by Act of Parliament, which had paid a dividend on their ordinary Stock for 10 years immediately preceding the date of investment; upon the Stock or annuities issued by municipal corporations and colonial Stocks or other public funds approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. He would point out that the concession made yesterday was really a very small extension. The Court of Chancery allowed trustees to invest, besides the ordinary Three per Cent Government Stock, in India Four per Cents, in Metropolitan Board of Works Stocks, and on mortgage on real securities. With regard to real securities, the extension of the power of trustees in regard to investment was very trifling, because, in consequence of the depression in the value of land, no trustee was likely
  58
  to invest funds under his control in real property. Therefore real securities must be put aside as an investment. Then, with regard to India Four per Cents he believed there was a sum of £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 in which trustees could invest. He now asked the House to accept his proposition, because a precedent had already been established for it some years ago. What he asked the Government to do in this case was already the law in Scotland in reference to trust funds. In the year 1884, an Act was passed providing for the investment of trust funds in Scotland which gave to trustees in Scotland the identical power for which he now asked. He did not think the House would say the Scotch people were not prudent in the matter of investment, and if they were contented to have a power of this kind, and to use it constantly, it was quite evident that it had been found to work effectually. Therefore, there would be no danger in introducing the same provision with regard to trust funds in this country. All that he asked was that the power already given to trustees should be extended to other classes of security—such as Preference and Debenture Stocks of Railway Companies. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to them in introducing the Bill as having increased very much in value, and no one could doubt that they were a first-class security. He only asked that such Preferential Stocks should be available as had paid a dividend on their Ordinary Stock for 10 years preceding the date of investment. In the first place, he asked for the inclusion of the Corporation Stocks of the various municipal towns in the Kingdom. He thought it would be conceded that these were as safe an investment as the Metropolitan Board of Works Stock. That was an investment already approved of by the Court of Chancery. He would ask the House how it could be said that the Corporation Stocks of the various towns of the country and the equally valuable Stock created by the Metropolitan Board of Works were not ample security for the investment of trust funds? Everybody knew that the Corporation Stocks of such towns as Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester were a most valuable security, and he asked why the principle which had

  59
  already been adopted in regard to the Metropolitan Board of Works should not be extended to the Stocks of these various Corporations? In the next place, he proposed colonial securities as another branch of investment which had operated well in Scotland. Trustees at present might invest in one branch of Colonial Stock—namely, the India Four per Cents, and he failed to see why they should not be able to invest in the New South Wales Three-and-a-Half per Cents, as well as in the India Four per Cents. Nevertheless, trustees were permitted to invest trust funds in Indian Stock, while they were not permitted to invest in the Stock of New South Wales and other Colonies. The clause he had drawn up contained a provision that the Court of Chancery should make an order as to which of the Colonial Stocks trust funds might be invested in. He thought the proposal was a very reasonable one, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would thoroughly understand that he had no desire to interfere with the success of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, nor did he believe that his present proposal would militate in any way against it. He did not think that it would affect the financial scheme of the right hon. Gentleman in any degree whatever; but inasmuch as the scheme would have the effect of necessarily cutting down small incomes, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to open the door to other securities, by means of which trustees would be enabled to got a dividend equivalent to 3 per cont. If that were not done, and it was not suggested that they would affect the success of the financial scheme, the impression would get abroad that the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to convert the Government Stocks into Consols, and to compel trustees to invest in them. Under these circumstances, he asked the House to allow the Bill to be re-committed for the purpose of introducing the clause of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now read the third time," and add the words "re-committed in respect of a New Clause."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr.GOSCHEN)said, he regretted that the Government could not accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Member. It appeared to him that the hon. and learned Member desired to substitute, for the Consols in which parents and testators had desired to invest, a variety of other securities, although it was the evident intention of such testators to bind up their money tightly in Government securities and not allow them to be invested either in Colonial Bonds, or any other securities. The Government had gone as far as it could by providing yesterday that a certain limited amount of Stock sanctioned by the Court of Chancery might take the place of Consols, and every person who chose could, by re-investment in those funds, get 3 per cent, because the Stocks in question would give them 3 per cent. But the hon. and learned Member went beyond that, and proposed to include Stocks which gave more than 3 per cent, and also gave power to Trustees to choose their investments. Whether that was a right or wrong principle, it ought to be looked at apart from the present Bill; and the question whether the investments authorized by the Court of Chancery ought to be widened or not could not come within the scope of that measure. He would illustrate that paint. The hon. and learned Member seemed to suggest that the Court of Chancery should determine what kind of Colonial Stock might be bought in place of Preference Stock. He could hardly imagine the Court of Chancery sitting down to inquire into the condition of the Colonies in order to decide which of the Colonial Stocks should be sanctioned and which should not. There would probably be a jealousy on the part of the Colonies that were left out. Again, there were such cases as extravagant Colonies piling up debt very fast; and he did not think that the House would desire to substitute any cases where the testator or the parent deliberately wished to leave tied up in Government securities investments of the class included in the proposals of the hon. and learned Member. The Government had gone as far as they thought the case allowed. They had admitted such securities as had been sanctioned hitherto; but they could not, by an incidental clause in the Bill, re-open or sanction a principle of far wider applica-

  61
  tion—namely, that of putting Colonial and other Stocks precisely in the same position as the Stocks of this country. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), he thought the hon. Member had not noticed Sub-section 3 of Clause 9, which provided that investment in various Stocks sanctioned by the Court of Chancery should not be deemed a change of investment. He would engage himself as far as this—in any exceptional case where there was a difficulty in obtaining the sanction of all the Trustees, no attempt would be made to take any advantage of any delay, official or otherwise, on the part of any owner so as to exclude him from the benefits of the Act. The Bill, however, had been varied, and he thought the hon. Member would find that his objection had disappeared.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he could not understand why the Government declined to accept the suggestion that securities sanctioned by the Court of Chancery should be available for the investment of Trust Funds. He felt the force of the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the proposition to invest in a variety of securities; and perhaps it would not be right to allow a Trustee to select the kind of security in which he would invest. But he was not asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do anything of a speculative or experimental nature; but to follow legislation which had already been sanctioned by the House. He failed to see why the Government could not, consistently with what they did yesterday, extend slightly the clause of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Cozens-Hardy). When the Settled Lands Act was passed in 1882 a course was taken which he thought might with justice be followed now, seeing that it affected the matter they were now discussing. It was determined by that Act that on land being sold the money might be invested on Government securities, or on other securities which the Act described. By that Act the Legislature allowed the money of a testator to be invested in land, and set forth what was to be done with the profits derived from such land. Among the securities sanctioned was the purchase of the Stock of any Railway Company
  62
  which had for 10 years before the date of investment paid a dividend on its ordinary stock and shares. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) asked the House to continue in this instance what was, in reality, a perfectly safe piece of legislation; and the reason they were asked to do so was that the step taken by the Government would not secure 3 per cent from investments in Consols. He would remind the Government that they were not really asked to interfere with any principle beyond that which was interfered with yesterday. They were only asked to extend the clause, so as to enable the interest upon invested Trust Funds to be increased from 2½ to 3 per cent, but no investment would be allowed to take place except with the sanction of the Court of Chancery. The Debenture Stock of a Railway Company which had paid dividends on their ordinary Stock and shares for 10 years must be a safe investment. He did not approach the question in any spirit of hostility towards the Government; nor did he know whether it would be better to make an appeal to the Government in "another place," or to take the matter in hand now. He would advise his hon. and learned Friend not to press the Government now; but to give them an opportunity of considering the matter. But if that course was not taken, and the Motion was pressed to a Division, he should certainly support his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. W. BECKETTsaid, that, for his own part, he quite agreed with the order embodied in the words of the Amendment; but he did not agree with the words of the Preamble—
  "Unless it is specially prohibited by the constitution or terms of the trust."
  He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept the suggestion made from the Benches opposite. He had received a considerable number of letters from various persons occupying the position of Trustees who complained of the limited range of investments; and he thought it was expedient that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should enlarge the powers of investment under the sanction of the Court of Chancery.
  MR.GOSCHENsaid, that it was only by the indulgence of the House that he could speak again. He would earnestly

  63
  entreat the House to pause before accepting the principle laid down by his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Henry James). The House must not only look at the narrow point, important as it was, of raising the income of a certain special class. [Sir HENRY JAMES: Maintaining.] It meant raising the income from the amount which would be derived from Consols. There was a much greater principle involved. The suggestion and the Amendment came to this—that new investments and other securities, such as Railway Debentures, were to be placed on the same footing as Government Stock. A precedent had been quoted to show that the concession had already been made, and that railway securities were looked upon as being as sound as land. This was not a question which could be dealt with in a hurry, involving, as it did, the establishment of the principle that Government securities were to be displaced from the position which they had held hitherto, of being confined to a small select number of securities sanctioned by the Court of Chancery, and that a much broader range should be given to investments. The proposal, if adopted, would really strike a blow on what he might call the credit of the State. He would not say it was a matter that ought not to be allowed; but he thought it ought not to be done until it had received the fullest consideration. He suggested that the question should be raised upon Lord Herschell's Bill with regard to the power of trustees. When that Bill came before the House the matter might be thoroughly discussed; but it could not be conveniently dealt with on the present occasion. What he wished to press upon the House was that in attempting to deal with a certain limited number of cases they were really introducing a new principle into the finances of the State, which might be fraught with considerable danger. He was sure that his right hon. Friend opposite would be aware of the force of this objection; because when once they admitted a security, and the security was found to be unsatisfactory, it would be extremely difficult to go back. He had been treated with such singular courtesy and consideration during the whole of the debates on this Bill, and he had found such a spirit of co-operation in all parts of the House, that he was most reluctant to establish
  64
  a point of difference with any hon. or right hon. Gentleman; but acting as guardian of the public purse, he could not depart from the principle to which he attached so much force.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for resisting the Amendment was that it was undesirable to raise such a broad principle, as this appeared to be, on the last stage of the Bill in that House. He (Mr. Fowler) would, however, point out that the question was very fully discussed before a very strong Select Committee, presided over by Lord Cross, to consider Lord Cairns' Settled Land Act. The principle was then settled that Trustees selling settled land should have power to invest not only in Consols, Government securities, and Court of Chancery, but on the security of bonds, mortgages, or Debentures of Railway Companies which had paid dividends on their ordinary Stock for 10 years. Therefore, the principle involved in the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn had already been settled by the House—namely, that Trustees should have power to invest not only in Government securities, but in Railway Debentures. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the Lord Chancellor and their Legal Advisers, would reconsider the matter, with a view of ascertaining whether, with due regard to the safety of the State, the concession now asked might not be made? He would not ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the matter at once; but simply to promise that it should be dealt with in "another place."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he wished to remind the House of the way in which the question arose—the attention of the Government had been prominently called to the matter; and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) not only by representations made inside the House, but by representations made by the general public. The matter had, therefore, been considered; and he hoped and trusted that something might be done in general legislation, if not in connection with the present Bill. They had already agreed to include those securities in which the Court of Chancery
  allowed trust money to be invested; but

  65
  they did not consider that that embraced the larger question which was now raised—namely, securities upon which a high rate of interest was obtained. He trusted that those who were interested in the matter would be satisfied with the assurance he had given. All he could say was that the Government were exceedingly anxious that Trustees should be empowered to invest in other securities, provided that it was consistent with the safe security of the trusts committed to their charge.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the hon. and learned Attorney General had, he thought, put the matter on the safest footing. He was sorry to say that he was Trustee for so many people that nothing would personally suit him better than some proposal like the present; but, in his opinion, it would be altogether opposed to sound principle. But he was obliged to differ from his right hon. and learned Friend who sat near him. He was afraid that if they gave to Railway Debentures this special character of being on a par with Government securities, it would be impossible to exclude other securities, just as safe; and, even as to railways, looking through the list of securities, it would be found that there were 50 or 60 which would be admitted under this scheme. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the matter was a proper one to consider in connection with the Bill which was coming down from "another place;" but he thought it would be dangerous to do anything now in the direction proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, he had listened with great pleasure to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Childers); and he hoped the Government would adhere to the course they had marked out for themselves. It was all very well to speak of Railway Debentures; and it might be desirable, when an individual was investing considerable sums of money every year, that he should be able to invest in ordinary Railway Stock; but he did hope that the House would not sanction the proposal of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Anderson), and place these large and
  66
  miscellaneous securities in the same position as Consols.
  SIR HENRY JAMESwas understood to ask what course the Government would take when the Bill now before "another place" came down? Would the Government give facilities for its full consideration?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, it was a Bill in which considerable interest was taken; and he thought it desirable that it should receive the best consideration. Ample opportunities would be afforded for discussing what securities should be authorized; and the list should be examined, with a view of ascertaining whether those which were now sanctioned could be increased with safety. He hoped that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Anderson) would not be disposed to press the Amendment to a Division. He was unable so far to compromise the present position of the Government as to hold out any hope, though, speaking for himself, he would be prepared to place Railway Debentures in the same position as Government securities. He quite admitted that a somewhat extended area might be allowed for investments. No doubt, there would be ample facilities for considering the matter hereafter; but he could not go beyond that.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY)said, he hoped the House would permit him to say one word, although he had not heard the whole of the debate. The question of enlarging the power of Trustees was one which undoubtedly deserved consideration, and might be followed up by some practical result; but he demurred to such an enlargement of the Bill as was now proposed. The Bill was a measure to enable the Government to pay off certain holders of Stock, and the holders of the New Three per Cents were entitled to be paid off if they liked. There was no compulsion; but, as a matter of course, they would, if paid off, have their money to invest as they might or could. The holders of any of the Government Stock would be entitled under the Bill either to be paid off, or to remain as they were. That was a transaction which was complete in itself, and it would only embarrass the transaction to give power to invest in other securities. The object of the Bill was clear, and it would be bad policy to go beyond it.
  MR. SPEAKERinquired whether the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn wished to withdraw the Amendment?
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he trusted that he might be allowed to say a word. He had given Notice of the Amendment some time ago, and it had been on the Notice Paper for several days; but owing to the Forms of the House he had not been able to bring it on. Therefore, it could not be said that he had taken the Government by surprise; and he should have been prepared to withdraw the Amendment if some assurance had been given that the principle involved in the Amendment would be accepted. He had entirely failed to hear anything of the kind from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, therefore, he must go to a Division.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put.
  Bill read the third time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill do pass."
  On the Motion of Mr. Secretary JACKSON, verbal Amendments made.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that he objected to the course the Government were taking. Amendments had been moved which were alleged to be purely verbal, but of which the House had no means of judging. Instead of taking that course on a Bill of so momentous a character, the Government ought to have re-committed the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: I read the Amendments to the House. I understand this to be a merely verbal Amendment transposing the words and leaving the sense precisely as before.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he would explain that a mere transposition of words had been effected in the clause accepted yesterday. He was exceedingly sorry to have to move the Amendment at so late a stage; but it could not be avoided.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill passed.

  CRIMINAL EVIDENCE BILL.— [BILL 132.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  CRIMINAL EVIDENCE BILL.— [BILL 132.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER), in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he took no credit to the Government for bringing this measure before the House, as they had enjoyed the advantage of the lab ours of other men and of previous Governments in previous years. The Bill proposed that prisoners and their wives should be competent but not compellable witnesses; that a man or his wife might give evidence on the man's behalf, but could not be forced to do so. There were, however, certain restrictions in the Bill as to the cross-examination of prisoners. The first great reason for the Bill was that during the last 20 years some 10 or 15 new offences had been created, with regard to which, almost without exception, a prisoner or his wife could give evidence. This was so, for instance, in the Explosives Acts, the Acts relating to conspiracy, the Food and Drugs Acts, the Merchant Shipping Acts—as to sending unseaworthy ships to sea—and notably in the case of the Criminal Law Amendment Act passed in 1885. The result was that the law was in a most anomalous condition. There was a number of offences in regard to which a prisoner could give evidence, and a number of kindred offences in which he could not give evidence. He had been furnished by members of both branches of the Legal Profession with extraordinary instances of the unjust operation of the present Law of Evidence. There was a prosecution at the Old Bailey, and two prisoners were indicted. It was desirable to prove their presence in another place at the time. One prisoner was married, and the other kept a mistress, and the latter was allowed to give the evidence which the lawful wife was debarred from giving. A man could be examined as to whether he had forged a trade mark; but he could not be examined on the charge of forging a cheque. Under the Criminal Law Amendment Act a man was permitted to be a witness, and might prove his own innocence; but if charged with precisely analogous

    69
    offences coming under the pre-existing law his mouth would be closed. It might be asked whether the changes already made in the direction of the Bill had proved to be satisfactory. He had communicated with a number of the Judges to ascertain their opinion on the question whether the new law on this subject worked well. They had many years' experience of it, and during the last three years hundreds of cases had occurred under the Criminal Law Amendment Act; and the unanimous testimony of both Bench and Bar was that it had the effect of allowing innocent men in several instances to get off, and causing guilty men to be convicted. He could, for instance, give several cases in which the evidence of children under the Act just referred to could only be rebutted by the statement of the man charged; and it had been on his statement, and the way in which he had given evidence, that an acquittal had been obtained, which could not otherwise have been obtained. All would admit that the first object to be attained was that the innocent should not suffer; and that it would be better for several guilty persons to escape than that one innocent man should be convicted. Mr. Justice Stephen had expressed himself strongly on the absurd state of a law by which a man charged with personating a voter could be examined, but not a man charged with personation and attempt to defraud; and a man could be examined with respect to the sending of an unseaworthy ship to sea, but not on a charge of manslaughter by negligence in so doing. But the Parliamentary history of the question was enough to justify the Bill. Efforts had been made for more than 20 years to change the law in this direction. The first Bill on the question was brought forward by two Irish Members—and he commended this fact to hon. Members below the Gangway—Mr. Scully and Mr. MacMahon. From that time to 1878 constant attempts of the same kind were made, and in 1879 the Report of the Criminal Law Commission was published. In 1883, before the Grand Committee on Law, the matter was fully investigated, with the result that a Bill was introduced in 1884 by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
    70
    Derby (Sir William Harcourt), and Lord Herschell, the then Solicitor General. On the lines of that Bill the present measure proceeded. The Bill had passed the House of Lords three or four times; and he would remind those who had studied the speeches of the great lawyers in the past of the unanimity there had always been amongst them on this question. He believed this Bill had the assent of the lawyers, and of every hon. Member who had considered the question from a practical point of view. No one, he thought, could deny that there was an urgent demand for this Bill. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) was recently defending a man who was indicted for shooting another under very curious circumstances. On that occasion his hon. and learned Friend expressed his hope that the present Bill might become law; and Mr. Justice Stephen, concurring in this view, urged his hon. and learned Friend to do what he could to press forward this much-needed change in the law. The proposals he had submitted would tend to elicit the truth, would conduce to the ends of justice, would load to innocent men being acquitted, and would bring out the truth in the case of guilty men. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that this was not the first time that this Bill had been before the House, and that he had expressed the opinion, formed after considerable thought and experience, in favour of it. There were two considerations which made it perfectly clear that the law could not be allowed to remain as it now was. The first of these was that the law as it now stood was utterly inconsistent, inasmuch as in one set of cases the person accused was allowed to give evidence on his own behalf, and another set in which he was prohibited from doing so. This Bill, also, was justifiable on a very broad and sound principle—that the rule of law which incapacitated an accused person from giving evidence on his own behalf had the effect of excluding the evidence of the person who knew most of the transaction in question. He did

    71
    not hesitate to say that, upon his present information and judgment, he should be prepared to go even further than this Bill proposed to go, and to make the party accused not only a competent, but in some cases, at least, a compellable witness. He would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) whether he did not think there was, at least, one case in which a prisoner should be a compellable witness? That was the case of four or five persons jointly charged with an offence, against three or four of whom there might be cogent evidence, but as to the fifth there might be some evidence, but not of a cogent kind. As the law now stood, the fifth man might be convicted; but if he were enabled to call the men beside him in the dock, they would be compelled to say that he was not present at the commission of the crime. In the Maamtrasna case, many hon. Members—not only those from Ireland—felt very uneasy in their minds with regard to one of the accused persons who was hanged. He knew that the Solicitor General, the Under Secretary of State for India, and he himself, took great pains to investigate the case; and they all three came to the conclusion that there was strong reason for doubting whether one man who was found guilty of murder with the rest, and suffered for it, was guilty of or took an active part in the crime. Could that man have called his fellow-prisoners and his wife as witnesses, it would, in all probability, have saved him from death. The law ought not to be directed towards the protection of the guilty, or to extend to them even an artificial protection; and he was prepared to go beyond what the Bill proposed in the matter of examining accused persons. There was one point that he should like to ask the Attorney General, whether he thought it necessary to insist upon doing what the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) did not insist upon doing—extend the operation of the Bill to Ireland? In the interest of the Bill itself, which, after all, was a new departure in our judicial system, it would be better to see how it operated in England before extending it to Ireland, where, whether rightly or wrongly, under the existing system, a widespread distrust of the administration of the law was unquestion-
    72
    ably felt. He would relate a little incident to illustrate that feeling. During the trials of the dynamitards at the Old Bailey, before Judge Hawkins, a few years ago, a friend of his, a respectable Presbyterian minister, from the North of Ireland, was desirous of hearing the trials, and he (Sir Charles Russell) obtained him a pass to the Court. Subsequently the clergyman called on him at his chambers, and said—
    "I was never more astonished in the whole course of my life! Why, a criminal trial in the Old Bailey is not like what I am accustomed to see in Ireland. The prosecuting counsel and the Judge were most anxious that nothing unfair to the prisoners should be mentioned, while in Ireland it is a scramble on the part of those who represent the Crown to secure a conviction."
    He did not wish it to be thought that, in giving this illustration, he intended to infer that the Judges, or others who were entrusted with the administration of the law in Ireland, were intentionally or consciously unfair; but he knew that there was a very considerable feeling against legal administration, which would, he feared, be intensified if the Bill were applied to Ireland.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that he also was very desirous to see the Bill passed, and would join in the appeal of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster). Everybody who knew anything about the administration of the Criminal Law knew how badly this measure was wanted in the interests of justice and mercy. It was wanted for the purpose of obtaining the exoneration of innocent men, as well as for deciding upon the degrees of guilt, for it affected not only the verdict, but the sentence. They had had experience of the Bill in many directions; and many a man who had been prosecuted under the Criminal Law Amendment Act would now be undergoing penal servitude but for the right which he had to give evidence on his own behalf. If a justly accused prisoner gave his own version of the affair for which he had been arrested, the Judge, from merely hearing his evidence, could form an idea as to how far he was implicated, and might possibly mitigate some of the terribly severe sentences now inflicted. At present the Judge heard but one side of the story of brutality, cruelty, and false conduct. With regard to the inclusion of Ireland, he consented in

    73
    1883 to exclude Ireland from its operation, because he believed that it would be well to do so until they had had some experience of its working in this country. After some experience of its working in England, he thought it might be applied to Ireland; but as it was well known that the Irish Representatives were at present strongly opposed to it, he hoped the Government would not insist upon forcing it upon an unwilling people. He might remind the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite of the saying that the greatest enemy to the good was the best.
    MR. WHARTONsaid, he believed that this Bill, which he hoped would pass into law, was one that would greatly assist in their duty those who had the administration of the Criminal Law, and also secure to those who were wrongly accused of crime greater facility for establishing their innocence. But there were three points to which he wished to refer. First, he read in the Bill that a person charged with an offence might be called as a witness, and, he asked, who was to call the prisoner? Was he to be called by the prosecuting counsel, the defending counsel, or by the Court itself? It seemed to him that on the Committee stage of the Bill it would be wise if some words were inserted more clearly to specify by whom the prisoner might be called. Secondly, with reference to the inquiry before the Grand Jury, the Bill said that the prisoner should not be called before the Grand Jury. He had always felt it to be a very anomalous condition of things that they should have an inquiry involving a charge against a prisoner entirely conducted in his absence; and he now thought that when they were dealing with a Bill of the kind it was worthy of their consideration whether this practice should be retained. His third question was, would the calling of the prisoner, without further evidence on his behalf, entitle the counsel for the prosecution to reply? He could not help thinking, if that were so, that this power of calling the prisoner might become something in the nature of a trap. It might be looked on as a trap if the counsel for the prosecution was to have the right of making a long speech on the statement which an unlearned or ignorant man might make. As he had said, he hoped
    74
    the Bill would pass, because he believed it would be the means of securing the acquittal of innocent persons; and if it tended to the conviction of the guilty, so much the better.
    MR. T. M. HEALYin rising to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, said, he desired to express his acknowledgments for what had fallen from the two hon. and learned Gentlemen (Sir Charles Russell and Sir Henry James) with regard to the application of the Bill to Ireland. If the Bill were to be applied under normal conditions he should offer no opposition to it. At present, however, the power to examine a prisoner and his witnesses as well existed in Ireland, and was frequently used in a manner most detrimental to the interests of the accused. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), however, was wrong as to the grievance complained of in the Maamtrasna case. The grievance was that Myles Joyce was not allowed to have his wife examined in his defence. He wished to know whether this measure, like the Coercion Bill, was going to be forced down the throats of the Irish people? The atmosphere of an Irish Court was totally different from that of an English Court of Justice, inasmuch as in the former every effort was made to insure the conviction of a prisoner. Nothing would do the Irish Judges more good than if they were obliged to spend a few weeks in English Courts. Every Judge in Ireland had been a Crown Prosecutor; and a Judge who had gone through a course of Crown prosecuting in Green Street Court House could scarcely believe any man innocent whom he saw in the dock. One of the best Judges on the Irish Bench was the other day led to charge a jury who were convinced of the innocence of a man, accused on the most flimsy evidence of the brutal murder of a woman, to find him guilty of manslaughter if they would not convict him of murder. He contended that cross-examinations, as they were conducted in Ireland by Crown Counsel, would simply leave the case in a worse position than before. Was it reasonable to suppose that with all the best trained intellect of the Irish Bar against a poor wretched prisoner who did not possess 200 words in the whole of his vocabulary the man

    75
    would not be broken down in the course of the cross-examination? He (Mr. T. M. Healy) would offer every opposition to this Bill being extended to Ireland. He could imagine it being a good measure under normal circumstances in England; but quite a different condition of things prevailed in Ireland. In England there was no prejudice or bias against a prisoner. It was not the interest of the Crown in England to obtain the conviction of a prisoner; but the Crown Prosecutor in Ireland regarded the conviction of a prisoner much in the same way as the Red Indian regarded the addition of a scalp to his belt, and all the talk of the Bar in Ireland was in that sense. He objected especially to this Bill on account of the character of the Resident Magistrates who would have this power of cross-examination and inquisition. The political spirit was at the root of every prosecution in that country, and convictions had to be obtained at all hazards. Personally, he felt so strongly about the measure that he would treat it, if applied to Ireland, in the same spirit as the Coercion Bill of last year. He would devote his days and nights, as far as the Rules would allow him, doing all in his power to defeat it, and he would ask his Colleagues to meet the Bill in a similar spirit. There was great force in the observation of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury, that the Bill should be put in operation in England for a few years first in order to see what rules the Judges laid down regarding it. Let them see whether the prisoner was to be allowed to be asked leading questions by his own counsel; and whether the cross-examination was to be generally ad rem to a particular crime, of the character, so to say, of that in the Bravo case. Let them see what the practice would be; and then they would be prepared to consider whether a somewhat similar measure might not be applied to Ireland at a future time. If at the present period they applied the Bill to Ireland they would have a feeling created in the country that they were adopting a Coercion Act in disguise; and the entire mind of the people, and the opinion of those who conducted defences on the popular side, would be that the Bill had been introduced for political purposes. Though a similar law to that proposed existed in foreign countries,
    76
    there was also at the same time existing the right of appeal. That was a most important matter. And in America, where a prisoner could be called in his own defence, there was an express provision in the Statute of some of the States. He thought he was correct with regard to Massachusetts, at any rate, and he believed, also, with regard to some of the States there was an express provision that if the prisoner abstained from going on the stand—as it was called—and giving evidence, his abstention should not be commented on by the Judge in his Charge to the jury, or by the counsel of the State. The result was a whole series of appeals, the accused having a better chance of justice being done him than in this country. In France the whole machinery of appeal was open to the prisoner. Why, then, did they not bring in a Bill to create a Court of Appeal, instead of bringing forward this insidious measure of piecemeal legislation? He invited working men Members of that House to consider whether there was not some danger in connection with that matter, especially remembering how limited the jury class was, even in this country. In Ireland the case in that respect was far worse. To show the limited class from which special jurors who tried cases in Ireland was drawn, he had obtained a Return which proved that while there were in the County Kerry 20,000 voters, the special jurors did not number 200. There would, under the Bill, be a great chance of the escape of a guilty man, and very little chance for an innocent man. If an ignorant man declined to put himself into competition with learned counsel, he would be taunted with fearing cross-examination. The Bill was another link in the chain of coercion which the Government were weaving in Ireland. He asked English Members not to consider the Amendment which he now begged to move unreasonable. It was—
    "That it is inexpedient to make any further change in the Criminal Law until a Court of Appeal in criminal cases is established, and that this House is not prepared to extend to Ireland a measure which would confer on removable magistrates the power of cross-examining a prisoner deprived of the protection of a jury."
    In the interests of Ireland it was most desirable that the disgraceful crimes which existed, especially in the County

    77
    of Kerry, should be as speedily as possible detected and punished. He himself should be glad if the local population—seeing that the police were unable to check those crimes—would take the matter into its own hands, and by stringent means put a stop to practices of that kind. It was certainly in no sense of shielding criminals that he deprecated the extension of that Bill to Ireland; but he respectfully asked for the consideration of that Amendment the unbiassed opinion of English Gentlemen, whose minds he would ask to be freed from prejudice in dealing with this matter. The Act would lead to the conviction of the innocent. The clover men who were guilty would escape, while the stupid men who were innocent would be convicted.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient to make any further change in the Criminal Law until a Court of Appeal in Criminal Cases is established, and that this House is not prepared to extend to Ireland a measure which would confer on removable magistrates the power to cross-examine prisoners deprived of the protection of a jury,"—(Mr. T. M. Healy,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. FINLAYsaid, he thought it was very satisfactory that there had been so much agreement on the part of those who had spoken as to the application of that measure to England and Wales. There had been, so far, no difference of opinion on this point—that it was desirable that the measure should pass with regard to that part of the United Kingdom. He confessed that he was very strongly in favour of the measure; and to his mind it was only astonishing that the present system should have existed so long as it had done. It seemed to him most extraordinary that, for so many years, they should have gone on carefully excluding the evidence of those who knew most about the subject-matter of the case. He was disposed to agree with the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) that it would be desirable either to omit altogether the Proviso to which he had referred, or to modify it to such an extent as to give the
    78
    power, in certain cases, of compelling the evidence of a prisoner. It would, he thought, be hard, where there was more than one prisoner being tried, if one of the accused was not able to call the other, who might be able to give evidence that would secure his acquittal. He assumed that it was intended to apply the measure to Scotland, and that it did apply; but he should like to ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, respectfully, whether certain modifications would not be necessary, and, perhaps, a new clause required, to render the Bill properly applicable to Scotch criminal procedure? No doubt, the Lord Advocate would give that point his attention. The only other question which remained was whether the Bill should apply to Ireland as well as to England, Scotland, and Wales. If that were a matter which depended only on local considerations, he (Mr. Finlay) should be prepared to act on the opinion which, he understood, was entertained by a great many of the Representatives of Ireland on that point. But, to his mind, that was a matter of general principle; and, speaking for himself, he thought it would be a great mistake if they were to have one law on a matter of that kind for one part of the United Kingdom and another law for another part. The question of what person should be allowed to give evidence was not one to be considered upon local considerations peculiar to Ireland. It was a matter of general principle, and a question on which he thought they ought to be guided by those broad considerations which were applicable to every part of the United Kingdom. He presumed that in Ireland, as in other parts of the Kingdom, it sometimes happened that an innocent man was put on his trial. Was it not desirable that he should be allowed to give his own account of the transaction, and submit that evidence which might secure his acquittal? There might be cases in which the only man who could give evidence necessary to establish his innocence was the prisoner himself; and yet they were told, when it was proposed to apply a measure of that kind to Ireland, that that was coercive legislation. Was that a correct statement? He would call the attention of hon. Members below the Gangway to the fact that the hon.

    79
    and learned Member for South Hackney gave one very striking illustration of the evils, as he said, of not allowing prisoners to be called to give evidence. Into the merits of that case he would not enter; but he would remind hon. Members below the Gangway that the Maamtrasna case, selected by the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney to illustrate the necessity of such a measure, was a case occurring in Ireland. And yet now it was said that the measure ought not to extend to Ireland. They had hoard a good deal from the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) in regard to the spirit in which Irish prosecutions were conducted. He was very sorry to hear what the hon. and learned Member said; but, assuming it to be the case that there was that animus for convictions, he would ask the hon. and learned Member whether it was not all the more reasonable to allow a man on his trial to give the evidence which, it might be, was the only means for securing his acquittal? He was strongly of opinion that it would be a mistake if the Government excluded Ireland from the operation of this measure.
    MR. MILVAINsaid, he could quite realize that if a man charged with a crime was compelled to give evidence in open Court gross injustice might arise, because it very frequently happened that some prisoners were of that nervous temperament that it was impossible for them to do justice to themselves in the witness-box. It would be still worse for such a person to stand in the witness-box without the protection of counsel to defend him; and he could also imagine that if he went into the box without the protection of counsel and was badgered as he had heard witnesses sometimes badgered by counsel his safety might be jeopardized. For that reason, he should object to the compulsory application of the Bill to all prisoners. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) had referred to the question of the application of the Bill to Ireland, and he had been supported in his remarks by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James). He (Mr. Milvain) confessed that he sympathized with the view that the Bill was not, at the present moment, necessary for the
    80
    administration of justice in Ireland. He did so, not on account of anything which had been said by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) as to the spirit of the administration of justice in Ireland, nor because he agreed with him in the instance which he quoted of the Judge, who, because the prisoner was not guilty of murder, charged him with manslaughter. Unless the procedure in the Criminal Law in Ireland was very different from the procedure of the same law in England, it would not be within the province of the Judge to charge the prisoner with manslaughter under the circumstances; but it would be in the province of the jury, taking a merciful view of the case, to find a prisoner guilty of manslaughter rather than murder. Nor did he sympathize with the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, because of his threats of obstruction. If this law were necessary for Ireland at the present moment, he should not hesitate for an instant to continue to walk through the Division Lobby again and again, as they had done last year, in order to pass the Bill; but, at the present time, he did not think that the Bill was necessary for the administration of justice in Ireland. He would ask the Government to consider whether, for other reasons than those which had been advanced, the Bill ought to be extended to Ireland? In the first place, they had had an amendment of the Criminal Law in Ireland last year; they had this subject then threshed out, and under the Act of last year the prisoner was protected against his evidence taken at the preliminary inquiry being used against him on his trial. If that was done last year, he asked the House whether, if the present Bill were applied to Ireland, it would not constitute an amendment of the Criminal Law (Ireland) Amendment Act as enacted last year? He objected also for this reason. They were told that law and order had become supreme in Ireland. They knew that in Ireland there was jealousy of the administration of the law, rightly or wrongly he did not pretend to say; but, considering that that fooling did exist, he asked the Government to consider whether it was desirable in any sense whatever to increase that feeling by extending to Ire-

    81
    land the provisions of this Bill? The examination of prisoners was a subject which he had watched with considerable interest, and he was glad to say that he agreed with the general principle. He therefore supported this Bill, which would also remove the anomaly which existed at the present time. Several instances had been quoted by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) which showed that there were many cases in which the prisoner might give evidence, and many other cases where he was precluded from so doing. He (Mr. Milvain) approved the principle of the Bill, because it got rid of this anomaly, and in that respect it was a legislative step in the right direction. But there was another reason why he agreed with the principle of the Bill, and that was because it corrected an existing evil. As the law existed at present, when the prisoner went into the witness-box to give evidence, he might be asked if he bad been previously convicted of any offence. He could give an instance which occurred in his own hearing of a man who was charged with a crime under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The man had been previously charged with a similar offence, and had suffered imprisonment; but after he was discharged from gaol he came into some money—a large sum for him, of about £600—and immediately afterwards a second charge was laid against him. Fortunately, he was defended by counsel, who believed he saw that the charge was the result of a conspiracy to extort money, and was fortunate enough in breaking down the case in cross-examination of the first two witnesses; the man was thereupon discharged with the approbation of the Judge. He would ask the House what would have occurred had that man not been defended by counsel? If the case of conspiracy had not been established before the case for the prosecution was concluded, and the man had been permitted to go into the witness-box to give his testimony, his previous conviction would have been put before the Court, and the jury would not have hesitated a single moment in convicting him. He said that the principle, but not the letter, of this Bill corrected that evil. The Bill said that no person examined under this Act should be examined as to
    82
    previous convictions. But might it not be contended rightly by counsel that this Act did not apply to the Acts under which prisoners might now be examined, and that under the Criminal Law Amendment Act questions as to previous conviction might be put to the prisoner? He suggested, with every deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, that a clause should be added to the Bill providing that it should not be lawful for any prisoner to be called and examined as a witness otherwise than in accordance with this Act, and that the clauses of previous Acts relating to this matter should thereby be repealed. Subject to that Amendment he agreed with the principle of the Bill, because he believed its effect would be to render more certain the conviction of the guilty and the acquittal of the innocent.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORDsaid, the Legal Profession in Scotland entirely approved of the principle of the measure. With reference to the Amendment, there could be no doubt that special reasons required to be given why a measure affecting Criminal Law should be applied to Great Britain and not to Ireland. But he thought the reasons given by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) why the Bill should not be extended to Ireland would appear very satisfactory to the House. The maxim which the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) laid down was a very weighty one—namely, that the Criminal Law of the land should be the same in all parts of the United Kingdom; but coming from his lips it had all the charm of novelty, and must have been a surprise to the House. He (Mr. Crawford) did not, however, make that remark for the sake of fixing upon his hon. and learned Friend the imputation of stating a paradoxical opinion, or following an inconsistent course of action, but in order to point out the reason why this part of the Criminal Law should not be the same in Ireland as in Great Britain was because his hon. and learned Friend and his Friends had succeeded in bringing it about that the main body of the criminal procedure in Ireland was not the same as in the other parts of the Kingdom. He (Mr. Crawford), and those who thought with him, contended that the administration of the

    83
    Criminal Law in Ireland partook of the nature of an inquisition; that a prisoner was not safe; that he was not protected or sure of obtaining fair play; that the law was not in itself in conformity with the opinions and the feelings of the people, and, therefore, was not administered in a way which they considered fair and just; and, so long as that state of things continued, he thought the Irish should not be deprived of what they felt to be a real protection. It would be a harsh, arbitrary, unjust, and unwise thing if the opinion of the Irish Members was not allowed to prevail on this question. But his principal object in rising was to express the acknowledgment that the Bill, so far as Scotland and England were concerned, was a welcome improvement of the Criminal Law. The subject was not new to them. It was many years since the Faculty of Advocates, of which he was a member, affirmed the principle of the Bill when it was first brought in by a private Member, and the feeling in favour of it had steadily grown. They had always in Scotland had some experience of the principle of consideration being given to the evidence of a prisoner. When the prisoner was apprehended, he had the opportunity of making a statement; and if he did so, his statement formed a necessary portion of the criminal proceedings. It was true that, technically, it could only be used as evidence against him, and not for him; but its production had hardly ever been refused by the prosecution, and had often been a safeguard of the innocent. Accordingly, their experience had led Scottish lawyers and the Scottish public to the opinion that the extension of the principle would be a beneficial thing. At the same time, there were certain details in which the measure might, with advantage, be better adjusted to the wants of Scotland. He was sure his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate would give due consideration to them, and that in Committee the necessary corrections would be made.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he found some difficulty in this matter, because he was thoroughly in favour of the Bill as it stood. He opposed the Bill when it was brought in by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James)
    84
    in 1886, because he thought there was not then sufficient protection for ignorant prisoners, especially in cases of poaching offences and trade disputes; and to meet the objection he then raised, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted had some force, and which would then have been dealt with had it been possible at that period of the Session, a clause had been added which protected that class of prisoners. It was because he believed the Bill to be iu its present condition an exceedingly valuable one, and one which might be of enormous benefit to prisoners in the country, that he appealed to the Government—he did not know that any kind of appeal could have weight after the appeal made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Durham (Mr. Milvain)—he appealed to the Government in the interest of the Bill itself not to include Ireland in it, and he trusted to give satisfactory reasons in support of that appeal. It was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) that the Bill dealt with a general principle, and that it ought, therefore, to apply generally to the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. That would be an effective argument if legislation had always been conducted on that basis; but it had not been. On many matters of general principle they had excepted one or the other country. He always thought that unfortunate; he always thought that of itself gave some colour to the claim that there should be separate Legislatures dealing with the separate countries; but he was bound to say that they had exceptional circumstances here which did justify at present the appeal to exempt Ireland from this Act. He did not quite understand the point urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness as to one defendant not having given to him the right to call other defendants included in the same indictment.
    MR. FINLAYsaid, that he simply endorsed what his hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Hackney said upon that point.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, at the present moment the law of England cer-

    85
    tainly, and he thought the law of the other countries also, was that so long as the whole of the defendants were not given in charge to the jury, any one of the defendants might apply to be tried separately, and might ground his application on the fact that he wanted to call his co-defendants as witnesses, and he had the right to do that, and, as far as his (Mr. Bradlaugh's) knowledge went, the Court would always accede to that request. Therefore, he did not understand the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness. If this Bill were passed in its present form, he understood that a prisoner would have the right to tender himself as a witness, or to tender his wife as a witness, on his behalf, or the prosecution or any co-prisoner would equally have the right to call him as a witness with this reservation, that the prisoner and his wife would have the right to refuse in the event of their thinking it would be right to do so. There was one point raised which he thought would be worthy of very serious consideration when they got into Committee, and that was the point that neither the Judge nor the counsel for the prosecution ought to have the right to comment hostilely upon the abstention of the prisoner from going into the witness-box. The matter ought not to be dealt with as it would be in a civil case. He had reason to remember a case in which three persons were indicted together; one of them applied to be tried separately, and the counsel for the prosecution in that case said he should comment upon the fact, in the event of their not being put in the box, of the other prisoners not being called by the one who would be tried separately. In that case the prisoner put the others in the box, and said nothing to them, except to ask them their names, thus relieving himself from the risk of hostile comment on account of not calling them; but it was not every prisoner tried by himself who had sufficient knowledge of what was in his power to do. A man would not care to render himself open to the unfair position in which he might be placed, and he (Mr. Bradlaugh) thought there ought to be in Committee an addition made to the Bill to the effect that there should not be any hostile comment either by the prosecuting counsel, or by the Judge, or by any advocate for any other prisoner charged
    86
    upon the fact that the prisoner or his wife had refused to exercise their right of going into the box. It would be a mistake to leave them the right of refusal if the exercise of it was to weigh against them as though it were a matter of guilt. Now, having dealt with that point, and expressed his hope that this Bill might become law for England, Wales, and Scotland, he ventured to say a word upon the appeal made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). As he understood him, the hon. and learned Member agreed with the principle of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member agreed that wives should have the choice of being called, and he agreed that prisoners also should have that choice, if it were not as he alleged—and he (Mr. Bradlaugh) thought with good grounds—that an exceptional state of things existed in Ireland. He would not discuss how that exceptional state of things had originated which would make the examination of prisoners as witnesses absolutely unfair. One of the hon. and learned Gentleman's grounds of objection was that the magistrates before whom the people must often come in the cases he had in mind were magistrates not of the ordinary character, but removable magistrates, tempted to act rather as partizans than as Judges, and as advocates for the prosecution rather than as persons seeking for the truth. There did seem to him to be real and material objection in that, and it was put very fairly to the House by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Durham that if they extended this Bill to Ireland now they would really override what the Government themselves consented to last year having an overwhelming majority at their disposal, when they exempted prisoners from having their examinations brought up against them as evidence in their trial. The objection which he (Mr. Bradlaugh) made to the Bill had been fairly and fully met, and it was because he did not desire that he should be driven into voting, as he must vote, for the Amendment, which he did not like—it was that he should not be driven into voting for an Amendment which, if carried, would be fatal to the whole of the Bill, that he asked the Government to take into consideration the appeal which had no

    87
    Party character. It was an appeal made to them from their own side, an appeal made to them by the right hon and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury, who certainly had this Bill at heart, and who, to his (Mr. Bradlaugh's) knowledge, took great pains with it in previous Sessions when it was in his hands; and it was an appeal which he (Mr. Brad-laugh) made in no antagonism to the Government at all, but because he believed that the Bill might be risked in passing, if the wishes of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford were not acceded to, wishes which were very justly founded upon the way in which justice was administered in Ireland. He was sorry to hear the hon. and learned Member for North Longford say there was prejudice in this country against the poor on trial. He did not think such a prejudice existed; it was true that in some trade disputes, and it was true that in some poaching offences, they did get what he might call a Party administration of justice; but outside such cases, and they were very exceptional, he did not think there was any excuse for saying that the Criminal Law in this country was pressed more harshly against the poor than against the rich, or that it was pressed more harshly against the unpopular man than it was against the popular man. He deemed it right to say that. He could quite understand the hon. and learned Member for North Langford saying what he did, considering his unfortunate experience of the administration—it was hardly fair to call it justice—of the law in his own country. No doubt the hon. and learned Member thought that what obtained in Ireland obtained in England also, but it did not. He would not trouble the House with any further remarks upon the point. He did not quite understand what the hon. and learned Member for Durham meant by the compulsory provisions of the Bill, for there were no compulsory provisions. There was great power of ascertaining the evidence given; but the prisoner was told—and by the clause the hon. and learned Attorney General had inserted, which met entirely the objection he (Mr. Bradlaugh) raised for two years to this Bill—the prisoner was told "you have the right to refuse." It was only needed that there should be in Committee inserted in the Bill some
    88
    provision that the refusal of a prisoner to give evidence should not be commented upon against him. If that were done he did not see a shadow of unfairness in the Bill at all, and he ventured, in sitting down, to ask the Government to exempt Ireland from the operation of the Bill, which would then pass practically as an unopposed measure. All Members concurred in wishing to make the Bill law, and all would like to see it extended to Ireland when a better state of things came about, and when its administration would not be associated with exceptional legislation which was rightly regarded as coercive.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)said, that in the few observations which he desired to lay before the House he would confine himself to the duty or expediency of including Ireland within the scope of the measure. There had been absolute unanimity in favour of its principle, and he submitted that its character in connection with the administration of justice and the admissibility of evidence made it primâ facie to apply equally to every portion of the United Kingdom. Suppose the Bill, if passed into law, were not to apply to Ireland, how extraordinary the position would be? If a man happened to be accused of a crime in England, everyone was agreed that it would be for his protection, if innocent, that he should be able to give his own version of the story. The same man could not give his version of the story if accused in Ireland. What shadow of excuse could there be for limiting the measure in that way? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) and others urged their appeal to the interest of the Bill, But the question to be considered was the interests of the administration of justice in Ireland. He looked upon this measure as a remedial measure, and, therefore, he thought it should be extended to Ireland. It would be very easy to take hold of this Bill as a convenient peg on which to hang a denunciation of the administration of the law in Ireland. It had been stated to the House that there existed in Ireland a widespread feeling of distrust with reference to the administration of justice in Ireland. It had been also stated that Irish Judges were inclined to lean rather more heavily

    89
    against an accused person than were English Judges. He did not now intend to enter into a defence of the Irish Judges, but he altogether denied that statement. A certain portion of the administration of justice was now entrusted to what had been called "removable" magistrates; but a certain portion of the law was administered the same way in England.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: They have the right of appeal always.
    MR. MADDEN: But if there was a small portion of the law administered in this way, were they to legislate for that special portion? It occurred to him that if the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) were examined they tended to show that there was all the more necessity for the extension of this Bill to Ireland. If Judges were unfair this Bill was all the more wanted, because everyone who had spoken had admitted that the Bill would be a protection to an innocent man who found himself in the dock. If the hon. and learned Member agreed that that was the case, and at the same time argued that the innocent man in Ireland was exposed to peril on account of the unfairness of the Judges, he thought the argument led to the opposite conclusion. If they were going to improve the method of taking evidence under the criminal system, surely they ought to improve it throughout the entire Kingdom, and for the benefit of every class. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford said that—
    "It is inexpedient to make any further changes in Criminal Law until a Court of Appeal in criminal cases has been established."
    No doubt, the question of the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal was a question of the very greatest importance. But what was the force of the argument which had been deduced in favour of the establishment of such a Court? It was that miscarriages of justice might occur in the trial of a case before a jury. But was this Bill a Bill to improve the mode of conducting trials, or was it not? If it was not, what was the meaning of this consensus of opinion in its favour? If it was, how could it be said that the chances of miscarriage were not diminished? In conclusion, he ventured to hope that the House would come to the decision that
    90
    this measure was an efficient measure, and one which was in favour of a class which, above all others, the House was bound to consider.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he was sorry to have to trouble the House a second time, but as an Amendment had been moved which narrowed the question before the House he wished to make a few further observations. Of course, all would appreciate the fact that the Bill before the House would give an advantage to innocent persons; but it was necessary to look to the circumstances in which that opportunity was given, and practical reasons and difficulties occurred to his mind why he thought that it might be that a different effect would be given to that opportunity in Ireland than would be given in England. He had hoped the Government would have given way to the appeal made by the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) and himself, and have excluded Ireland from the operation of the Bill. He would not go into the question of the administration of justice in Ireland, but did not think it was possible to assert that the conduct of criminal cases in Ireland was exactly the same as it was in England. Anyone who had watched the conduct of criminal cases in England would know that no prosecuting counsel ever thought of exercising any ingenuity to secure a conviction. The Judge was always careful that no prosecuting counsel should for a moment exceed the line of his duty. He hoped and believed that was the state of things in Ireland; but he was not quite sure that in some class of cases there would not be an neuter phase of forensic rivalry than would be displayed in this country, so that the efficacious principle might not be the same in Ireland as in England. But then there was the question of a prisoner who did not wish to be called. English prisoners, he was sure, as a rule, would regard this Bill as a beneficent and merciful measure in their favour, and would in most cases wish to be examined on their trial. But they must take Ireland as it was. They must take the opinion in Ireland as it was, and they must take into consideration the opinions of the Representatives of the Irish people as they were. Although he thought they would be teaching the

    91
    Irish people wrongly, yet they would teach the Irish people that this was a hostile measure; and if they did that, might it not be that the Irish criminal would take up an attitude of dogged hostility to this measure, and refuse to go into the witness-box? If that should prove to be the case a position would be taken up by the Irish prisoner which would defeat the very object of the Bill. He would remind the Government that those who were united in their efforts to maintain the Imperial Parliament constantly stated that they were willing to listen to the opinions of Irish Members, and, in matters solely affecting Ireland, to give to those opinions their due weight, having regard to their being based on local knowledge. The Bill would only succeed if it were regarded as a beneficent Bill; and if it were regarded as a measure establishing a tyrannical inquisitorial power it would not be a good Bill. He therefore appealed to the Government to accede to the Amendment, and allow the Bill to come into operation in England without further delay. When experience had manifested the beneficial operation of this change in the law, a desire for its extension to Ireland would, no doubt, soon arise in that country.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE)said, he was very glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) had had an opportunity of addressing the House again, and of developing what he called the arguments in favour of this Amendment. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman had made an appeal to the Government in favour of the Amendment was a matter of importance, having regard to the right hon. Gentleman's previous connection with this Bill. His words were entitled to be considered; but they, in effect, amounted to a most amazing argument. The right hon. Gentleman was strongly in favour of the principle of a prisoner being allowed to give evidence in his own defence, yet, though he could point out no distinction in principle between Ireland and England, he now urged the House to withhold this beneficent Bill—to use his own term—from Ireland. His argument was that it ought not to be extended to Ireland, because the Irish Members were against it. If the right
    92
    hon. Gentleman believed that this change in the Law of Evidence would make the administration of the Criminal Law more fair and just, there was no reason for not extending it to Ireland, save that which was based on the alleged partiality of Irish Judges, which was a ground disavowed by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had appealed to the Government not to extend the Bill to Ireland; but the only real argument that had been adduced in support of such a course was that it would be more easy to pass the Bill if this Amendment were agreed to. That argument had great force with him, for before he entered the House he had pledged himself to do all he could to have the law amended as the Bill proposed to amend it; and he was most anxious to see it placed upon the Statute Book, even if it only extended to England. But this was not the end of the Session, and the House had still plenty of time to deal with this subject; and if it was right to extend the Bill to Ireland the House ought not to be frightened out of doing so by the throats of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he did not think it right that the hon. and learned Gentleman should apply such a term to what he said. He made no threat; he merely expressed his intention of exercising his Constitutional right of opposing the measure.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he should like to know what single word the hon. and learned Member would use to describe the intimation he had given them?
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he would not describe it by any single word, but by several.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, the word he had used was the nearest he could think of to describe the intimation of the hon. and learned Member that if the Amendment was not accepted he would devote his days and nights to constructing Amendments.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he never mentioned the word Amendments.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, at this period of the Session it would not be just or wise or right to yield to such an

    93
    intimation as this. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) had dealt with what might be styled the "atmosphere" of the Irish Courts. But the worse the atmosphere was, the more essential was it that the prisoner should be allowed the privilege of giving evidence. It was said that an ignorant prisoner would be pounced upon and unfairly cross-examined by experienced Queen's Counsel; but his experience of criminal trials was that if an ignorant witness was unfairly cross-examined the sympathies of the jury were always drawn to him. [An hon. MEMBER: Packed juries.] Well, if the Judges were partial and the juries were packed, no rules of evidence were of much importance. The safeguard afforded by publicity existed in Ireland as in England. The hon. and learned Member for South Hackney had referred to the Maamtrasna case. With regard to that case he (Sir Edward Clarke) had in the past expressed his opinion. He adhered to that opinion, and was quite ready to repeat it at any time. But that case was very curiously introduced by the hon. and learned Member, who argued that if the prisoners could at the Maamtrasna trial have given evidence an innocent man would have been saved, and then the hon. and learned Member went on to argue that this change of the law should not be extended to Ireland. At present there existed absurd anomalies, owing to a man charged under the Criminal Law Amendment Act with an assault on a child being permitted to give evidence, while another man charged with an attempt to commit a still more serious crime could not. These anomalies existed in Ireland as well as in England, and ought to be abolished. He felt very strongly in favour of that portion of the Bill which swept away that barbarous rule which prevented a husband and wife giving evidence for each other. It was amazing that such a rule should have been allowed to continue on the Statute Book until now. The inequity of this rule was strongly brought home to his mind by a case in which he appeared for a prisoner some years ago. The prisoner, a respectable man, who had been 28 years in the employment of the same firm in London, was charged with setting fire to the premises. He was the last person known to leave the
    94
    premises. He left at 6 o'clock, and the fire occurred at 8 o'clock. He believed the prisoner to be innocent—the man being of the highest character and having no motive for committing the crime. He asked him to account for the interval between 6 and 8 o'clock. The man said he had been making a few purchases at one or two shops, and then went home and helped his wife with the children. The children were too young to be put in the witness-box, and by the existing laws of evidence neither the wife nor the husband could give any evidence. He did not dare to call the persons at whose shops the prisoner had called, for they could only account for half-an-hour of the two hours, and one hour and a-half would have remained unaccounted for. Fortunately the presiding Judge carefully looked into the case, and the man was acquitted. But this case firmly convinced him of the unfairness of not permitting a wife to give evidence on behalf of her husband. There was no real ground for the suggestion that the change which the Bill would effect would injure any innocent prisoner. Hon. Members from Ireland said that prisoners in that country were tried in an atmosphere of adverse prejudice. Well, given an unfair Judge, a jury prejudiced against the prisoner, and a prosecuting counsel inclined to be unfair—given such a state of things, what possible chance would a prisoner have who could not give evidence in his own behalf? By shutting out the evidence of an innocent prisoner, tried before an unfair Judge and a biassed jury, dealing with inferences and hypotheses they would be doing the very thing which must destroy all his chances of proving his innocence. He had known many cases of prisoners who had saved themselves by the statements which they were permitted to make to the jury; and again and again prisoners had asked him, with tears in their eyes, whether they could not give evidence. The present practice was not at all satisfactory. It would be remembered how, at the trial of O'Donnell some four years ago, the counsel for the prisoner claimed the right to state to the Court, as a narrative of facts, the story supplied to him by his client, and how the Judges decided that counsel had no such right. In consequence of that decision the dangerous practice had arisen of allow-

    95
    ing a prisoner to make a statement before his counsel's address to the jury. This gave a great advantage to a clever rogue, but if he were liable to cross-examination his cleverness would avail him little. In the witness-box clumsy innocence would succeed in gaining an acquittal from a jury far more certainly than clover roguery. He trusted that the House would persist in its determination to pass the Bill unaltered, and thus to do an act of real and substantial justice to innocent defendants, not only in this country, but in Ireland also.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, that the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke), powerful as they were, were not directed to the point of the Amendment, but to the defence of the general principles of the Bill. There was no difference of opinion as to the utility of the measure. They were all agreed that to allow prisoners to become witnesses when they wished to do so would be a humane and beneficent change. He was unwilling, for that reason, to make a remark of a political character. But the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) must now perceive that the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite of the principles upon which Ireland ought to be governed were not the views he entertained. He could not agree that all the reasons which existed for the application of the Bill to England must necessarily exist in the case of Ireland also. The hon. and learned Solicitor General said that there was no distinction between the cases. It would be very easy to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman why he did not lay down the same principle in such a matter, for example, as local government. If the principles upon which the demand for the extension of local government was founded were admitted to be beneficent and wise, why not extend their application to Ireland? The hon. and learned Gentleman had not dealt effectively with the argument of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy)—that the atmosphere of an Irish Court was not supposed by the people of Ireland to be favourable to the prisoner. The argument of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford proved that there was all the difference in the world between the operation of a measure in
    96
    Courts like the English Courts and its operation in Courts such as the hon. and learned Member and his Friends believed theirs to be. This was a Bill in favour of the prisoner; but the Government were going to apply it in a country where it would inevitably be regarded—whether rightly or wrongly—as being hostile to the prisoner. The effect of the measure upon Irish opinion would be the very opposite of that which was justly claimed for it in England. The hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) had argued with great plausibility that the supposition that there was animus in the mind of a Judge against a prisoner was all the more convincing reason why they should give the prisoner the chance of exculpating himself by giving evidence. But it must not be forgotten that if the contention of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford were correct, and if there was animus in the mind of an Irish Judge and a strong animus in the prosecuting counsel, the prisoner under this Bill would be exposed to the risk of a bitterly hostile cross-examination, and enforce on him a very serious disadvantage. It appeared to him (Mr. John Morley) the sheerest pedantry to insist that because this was a wise and desirable change in itself and in this country, they were, therefore, bound to force it upon Ireland against the wishes of her Representatives, and against the opinion of so staunch a partizan of the Government on the Opposition side as the right hon. and learned Member for Bury. The right hon. and learned Member for Bury was free from the suspicion of motive which attached to the Irish Members below the Gangway, and he had shown that he was strongly opposed to the change itself; and on both these grounds his opinion was entitled to the greatest weight. Would the Government insist upon extending the legislation to Ireland against the wish of all the popular Representatives of that country, and against the opinion of a partizan of their own who was most competent to give an opinion upon that subject? He wished to underline the argument of the hon. and learned Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Milvain), which he was surprised the Government did not see the force of. They considered they were engaged on the difficult task of restoring law and order in Ireland. They said

    97
    they had now got a state of opinion in Ireland much more favourable than it had long been to the maintenance of law and order and respect for the administration of the law. They must admit, therefore, that it was most undesirable politically to arise fresh jealousy by introducing a single element of suspicion or irritation into the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland at a moment like this; and yet they must equally admit that this would be the effect of the provision which, with deplorable tenacity, the Government insisted upon extending to Ireland. For his part, if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) limited his Amendment to the proposal that it was inexpedient to extend to Ireland a measure which would confer on magistrates the power to cross examine prisoners, he (Mr. John Morley) would support it with a clear conscience, and with no desire to do anything but to further the passing of the Bill as regards England and Scotland.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND) (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he thought they were all agreed that they ought to extend to Ireland, when it was possible, every beneficial measure they gave to England. Therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) had had to do was to show that in Ireland circumstances were different in some matter relative to the particular issue before the House. The special illustration used was the most astonishing and extraordinary he ever heard; because, while in the matter of local government the circumstances of Ireland were enormously different from those of England, there was great similarity between them in the administration of justice. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) had enunciated a proposition which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) strongly repudiated—namely, that the Bench in Ireland showed a bias against a prisoner, which their brethren in England did not show. Learned gentlemen did not practice before the Courts in both countries; and the impression he had derived from speaking with those who were acquainted with the administration of Criminal Law in both England and Ireland, was that the Irish Judges
    98
    were as careful as their English brethren to see that everything was urged for the prisoner that could be urged, and that the inclination of justice should always be in favour of the prisoner whenever there was a doubt. What the right hon. Gentleman contended was not so much that the machinery was bad as that public opinion in Ireland was against it. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) ventured to say that public opinion in Ireland—or, for the matter of that, in this country either—did not exist on this subject outside legal circles. If they put this machinery in force, and if the Irish people on seeing how it worked concluded that it worked badly, he would admit that there was something in the plea that public opinion was opposed to it. But at present, what was against it was the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford—not an opinion which he underrated, because he believed that it would materially assist in the passing of the Bill. What they ought to look at in this matter was not the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) or the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, however great ought to be the weight of these opinions in the House. What they had to consider was whether this Bill was an improvement of the machinery of criminal justice, as every human being admitted it to be in England; and no argument had been brought forward to show that it would not be an equal improvement in Ireland. It was surely an unorthodox proposal that because there was a certain amount of uninformed sentiment against the change in the mind of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, they should therefore refuse to innocent men in Ireland the protection they gave to innocent men in England. Whether Irish tribunals were good or bad, it must be in the interests of justice that full evidence should be brought into the light of day with regard to every case that was tried. If there was prejudice against prisoners, and magistrates were unjust Judges, the way to keep them in order was that public opinion should be brought to bear upon their action, so as to compel them to have brought into Court all the evidence which could tell in favour of innocent

    99
    men. Inasmuch as this Bill was admitted to be one of the most powerful pieces of machinery for effecting that object, he should for that reason, if for no other, do everything he could to bring it into operation for Ireland as well as for England.
    MR. DILLONsaid, the light hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) entirely forgot the argument put forward from the Irish Benches. What he (Mr. Dillon) and his hon. Friends contended, and what they believed was, that the atmosphere and the methods adopted in Irish Courts would prevent this machinery being favourable to the prisoner in Ireland, as it would be undoubtedly in England. In that lay the whole essence of the controversy. It was a most important point of the controversy, and so it had been justly and properly dwelt on by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench—namely, that it did not matter so much whether they were right or not in their opinion; the question was whether they were faithfully reflecting the sentiments of the people of Ireland in this matter, and if that were so the argument in favour of omitting Ireland from the Bill was unanswerable. He thought the reception given to the appeal made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) was a further and most striking illustration of the uselessness of having Irish Members in the House of Commons at all. What was the good of the Irish Members in the House? He overheard an hon. Gentleman say it would be better if they were not there. [A Cheer.] Yes, hon. Gentlemen cheered the idea that they were useless. He asked the Speaker whether this instance was not an extremely apposite illustration of the utter uselessness of Irish Members being in the House of Commons at all? What was the good of the Irish people sending Members to Parliament if the House of Commons refused to believe that they were stating the views of their constituents? They had to-night heard the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) and the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) in the most self-satisfied way, proclaim themselves to be better judges of how the Irish people
    100
    would receive this measure than the Irish Members. That was certainly what the whole of their argument amounted to. Coming to the question of how this Bill would be received in Ireland, he maintained that it was impossible for anyone at all acquainted with the condition of Ireland to doubt that it would be received by the people of that country as a measure directed against prisoners. Let him point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that it was an unhappy circumstance in the history and condition of Ireland, that the people of Ireland were obliged to follow the administration of the Criminal Law a great deal more closely than the people of England. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) told the House that there existed no public opinion in Ireland upon this matter. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken, and he would find that the moment this Bill and its proposals became known to the people, there would be a great outcry against it. Men in Ireland did not know from week to week how soon they might be hauled up before the magistrates, and therefore there existed a much keener and wideawake public opinion on the question of criminal practice than existed in England. This was not a question confined to lawyers, and to those persons now administering the Criminal Law. It was perfectly absurd to suppose that in Ireland there was the same confidence in the impartiality of the Judges and in the fairness and impartiality of prosecuting counsel as in this country. Everybody who was acquainted with the past history of criminal procedure in Ireland knew that the vast majority of prosecuting counsel followed the prisoner like bloodhounds on the track, and they had been over and over again proved to have carried on such proceedings for the conviction of a man, both in the manipulation of evidence and in their conduct in Court, as would simply horrify an English lawyer. The great aim the Irish prosecuting counsel had set before them was, per fas out nefas, to get a conviction. He ventured to say with confidence that if any English lawyer, accustomed to criminal prosecutions in this country, were to attend a Bar Dinner, or a meeting in which there were a number of Crown Prosecutors in Ireland, he would come home horrified

    101
    at the tone and temper adopted by these men towards prisoners. He (Mr. Dillon) did not accuse any particular individual Crown Prosecutor; but he alleged that it was a common proceeding for these gentlemen to endeavour to get a conviction under any and all circumstances. They knew the history of Mr. Peter O'Brien—they knew what he had done, and he was at the head of the whole criminal prosecuting system in Ireland, and when they were told by hon. and learned and by right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the system proposed by this Bill would have come to the relief of the accused in the Maamtrasna murder case, he would assort his belief that it would in no way have come to the rescue of Myles Joyce. He did not think that Myles Joyce or anyone else would have dared voluntarily to face the cross-examination of a man like Peter O'Brien. He (Mr. Dillon) knew perfectly well the story of the manner in which the evidence in the Maamtrasna case was manipulated by the prosecuting counsel and the prosecuting solicitor before it came into Court. They knew that Mr. Peter O'Brien was in possession of evidence the tendency of which would have been to give the prisoner a chance, and that they deliberately suppressed it. Evidence would have been forthcoming from a certain boy whose testimony might very probably have shaken the opinion of the jury as to the guilt of the prisoner; but the Crown Prosecutor would not allow it to be used, and it was with regard to such men as this—to protect prisoners and give them fair-play—that the Irish Members were asked to assent to the principle of this Bill. He (Mr. Dillon) held that if Myles Joyce had had an opportunity of going into the witness-box and submitting to an inquiry, he never would have dared to avail himself of it so long as Mr. Peter O'Brien was the prosecuting counsel, and there hon. Members would appreciate the difference between England and Ireland. An Englishman, whatever he might be accused of, knew perfectly well that if he got up in Court and told his story simply and fairly, he would not be bullied and browbeaten by the prosecuting counsel, and he knew perfectly well that if he convinced the prosecuting counsel that there was a doubt in the case he would get the benefit of the doubt. But in the mind
    102
    of the Irish prisoner such a belief did not exist. He (Mr. Dillon) spoke on this subject with a perfect knowledge of the opinion of his fellow-countrymen. It was preposterous for the English Attorney General and Solicitor General, who had probably never put a foot on Irish soil in their lives, and knew nothing about the people of Ireland—it was preposterous for them and the Irish Secretary to tell him that they know the minds of the Irish peasantry better than the Irish Members did, and that the Irish peasantry would accept this Bill as an emancipating measure. Whatever might be the faults of himself and his Party—whatever might be their sins and ignorances—surely they might be allowed to speak on behalf of the feelings, aye, and the prejudices, too, of the Irish peasantry if they desired. He declared that this measure would not be accepted for a moment as anything but an addition to the coercive system for strengthening the awful machinery of the law in Ireland directed against the peasantry. The ordinary Irish peasant, when he felt he was innocent, would not dare to go into the witness-box. He certainly would not do so as long as the present Irish Attorney General was in Office. The reputation of that Gentleman in Ireland was such that anyone who had not the greatest confidence in his own ability would not dare to face him. And what would be the result on the Court if the accused person, having this dread in his mind, were to refuse to give evidence on his own behalf? Mr. Peter O'Brien would say—"What more evidence do you want?—this man refuses to go into the box, and is, therefore, manifestly guilty." That argument would tell enormously with a jury carefully packed, as juries were packed in Ireland. He (Mr. Dillon) knew very well how this thing would operate. It would operate in the direction of increasing enormously the distrust of these poor people in Ireland in the administration of the law, and it would operate to put into the hands of the Crown Counsel a still wider discretion than that they had used latterly, and which they had used with most fatal effect on the minds of the Irish people. Let him bring to the notice of hon. Members who thought that he (Mr. Dillon) and his Friends were exaggerating when they stated that the

    103
    Crown Counsel in Ireland were not impartial and honest in the discharge of their duty, the facts of a recent murder trial in Wicklow—and when he detailed these facts he did not believe there was a man in the House who would not be thoroughly convinced that the individual accused in this trial could not for a moment believe in the just spirit either of the prosecuting counsel or of the Judge. What happened? The Clare peasants who were accused of the murder of the policeman Whelehan under the Crimes Act were brought from Clare to Wicklow, and when in Wicklow they were brought before a special panel, and the jury was packed upon that special panel. The men were convicted. The Crown strained every nerve to get a conviction; and he was bound to say that the feelings of these men must have been something frightful when they saw the jury which was selected to try them. Well, immediately after that trial, there came on the trial of the murderer of Kinsella, and the Crown Counsel, having the power to do so, placed this man on trial before his own employers—that was to say, the owners of the property forming the scene of the murder. They did not exercise the power they exercised in the other case. No opposition was offered on the part of the Crown Counsel when Kinsella's murderer applied for a change of panel from a common to a special jury. When the accused was brought with the consent and connivance of the Crown before a jury of Wicklow landlords, the Crown Counsel refused to challenge any jurymen, and allowed the first men whose names had been called to be put on the panel. They had allowed the prisoner 30 challenges, but in the other case they had themselves used 30 challenges against the Clare men in order to pack the jury. And then, in open Court, the whole demeanour of the Crown Prosecutor was friendly to the murderer of Kinsella, and he did not take the trouble to conceal, after the trial was over, that he was rejoiced at the acquittal. Now, in the face of these trials, which had occurred within the last six months or so, were the Irish Members to be told that there was no ground for the belief of the Irish peasant when he might happen to be charged with offences to be put upon his trial, that the atmosphere of the Court was not unimpartial? It was in the face of these facts that he said to
    104
    hon. Members opposite that they must not be surprised if the Irish Members did not give the same reception to a measure of this character which the English Members and the English people did. But this was not the whole case; it was only one branch of it. He had noticed that the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Solicitor General for Ireland had passed very lightly over the case of the Resident Magistrates. The Solicitor General for England, with his usual glibness of argument, said that if they were improving one branch of criminal administration for one part of the United Kingdom they were improving it for all. He (Mr. Dillon) would ask the House to consider the principles laid down by Resident Magistrates in Ireland. Only the other day, in a certain case which came before one of these Resident Magistrates, the magistrate said—
    "These men are accused of holding a certain meeting, and there is a presumption—a general belief—that the meeting was held, and they, if they can, have to give proof that it was not held,"
    and thereupon he sentenced them to terms of imprisonment with hard labour. This Resident Magistrate had actually laid the burden of proving that a meeting was not hold upon the prisoners. The police could not give evidence that a meeting was held, but only of the existence of a presumption that it was held. It must be remembered also that there was this difference between law in England and in Ireland in these cases—namely, that there was no appeal in Ireland when sentences were short sentences. Was it that the Government were going to introduce a system with regard to short sentences in which the Crown Prosecutors were going to be allowed to call on every prisoner to go into the witness-box and prove his innocence, and submit to cross-examination before a hostile counsel and hostile magistrates—gentlemen who did not conceal their ferocious hostility, and who had actually been known to give a physical expression to that hostility the moment after they had left the Bench. The magistrates in Ireland never were impartial, they were always strongly opposed to prisoners, and he (Mr. Dillon) maintained that if this new law were introduced into Ireland the procedure of the Resident Magistrates would be

    105
    this. To every man who came into Court accused of a crime they would say "Are you going to be examined? If you are not, you are guilty." That would be a very serious matter, and he (Mr. Dillon) declared that he did not believe that he was exaggerating in the slightest degree what would be the result of this measure in a Magistrate's Court. The Irish Members were told that they did not give a single argument why there was any difference in Ireland from the position of affairs in England with regard to these laws. He would ask, what use was it for them to give any arguments? For all practical purposes the Irish Members on these benches might just as well sit as dumb logs. When they gave arguments they were sneered at, and when they gave the opinions of their constituents they were told by English officials that they knew more about those things than the Representatives of the Irish people themselves did. In conclusion, he would ask whether any hon. Member would explain on what ground the Government wanted to retain Irish Members at Westminster instead of allowing them to go away and manage their own affairs at home?
    MR. HUNTERsaid, he must join in the appeal which had been made to the Attorney General for England. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should persist in joining in this Bill two countries so differently situated as England and Ireland—countries to which the same arguments did not in any degree apply. Every consideration which induced them to support this measure for Scotland and England compelled them to refuse their assent to it for Ireland. If the Attorney General were actuated by a single desire to benefit the people of England, he would, without the slightest hesitation, cut Ireland out of the Bill. But the hon. and learned Gentleman reminded him (Mr. Hunter) of what Macaulay said about the Puritans and ball-baiting—namely, that the Puritans were opposed to bull-baiting not because it hurt the bull, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. It seemed to him, from the course the debate had taken, that the intention of the Government was not so much to benefit the English people as to pass a measure which would be injurious and offensive
    106
    to the Irish people. The Government seemed to search with the greatest eagerness for opportunities of trampling upon the opinions of the Irish people. In that respect they had been joined by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay). Well, he (Mr. Hunter) was not surprised. His hon. and learned Friend was logical because he was one of those Gentlemen who thought it would be a great misfortune if Scotch questions were to be decided by Scotch Members; and, holding that view, perhaps, he would think it equally bad that Irish measures should be influenced by the opinion of Irish Members. He (Mr. Hunter), however, did not think that these were opinions that were held in Scotland, or were opinions such as would recommend themselves to this House. He was one of those who very strongly supported this Bill two years ago, on the understanding that it would not be applied to Ireland. What were the reasons that the Bill should be adopted for England and not adopted for Ireland? He would answer that question in a single sentence. It was the greatest fallacy in the world to pretend that the examination of an accused person was, under all circumstances, and in every case, necessarily for that person's benefit. There were many circumstances and many cases where it was a measure not calculated to promote the administration of justice, and not calculated to facilitate the discovery of truth, but calculated for a very opposite purpose. Wiry did he support this Bill for England? He did so for two reasons. In the first place, there were a great many poor people in England who could not afford to fee a counsel for their defence. One hon. Member stated to-night that the poor man had an advantage as compared with the rich man; but the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had reproved him for the assumption, and said that he himself believed that the advantage was in favour of the rich man as against the poor. He (Mr. Hunter) believed there was no system so well calculated to screen the guilty and protect the innocent as the English system of criminal procedure, when they had counsel on both sides and a Judge and jury. But, at the same time, his belief was that if they had not counsel fur a prisoner there was

    107
    no system so injurious to a prisoner as the English system. The reason was this. The English system was full of technicalities with regard to the examination of witnesses; and what chance could an unfortunate prisoner have to defend himself under these circumstances? Take a case. A witness was under examination. The Judge invited the prisoner to cross-examine that witness; and how did the prisoner begin? He said—"You said. I did so and. so." Instantly he was pulled up by the Judge, who informed him in solemn tones—"Sir, you must not make a statement, you can only ask a question." Well, the result was that the unfortunate prisoner was dumb-founded—he did not know where he was. He did not know in what shape to put his question, or how to conduct his case; and then what happened? Why, when all the witnesses were passed over without cross-examination, and the prisoner said "It is not true, as has been stated, that I did so and so, and so and so," the Judge interrupted him with the observation, "It is now too late to go into those matters, you should have asked questions with regard to these points of the witnesses when in the witness-box." The effect of the existing system, where counsel were not employed, was that the Quarter Sessions was very often like leading sheep to the slaughter; but the bias of the Judge was always in favour of the plea of "Not Guilty." He (Mr. Hunter) thought that the English Judges almost invariably acted upon the principle that it was better that 10 guilty men should escape than that one innocent man should suffer. In these cases, where prisoners were not defended by counsel, and where they were protected by perfectly fair and impartial Judges, he believed that the passing of this Bill would be an immense help and improvement to these prisoners, and, to a large extent, would be an effectual substitute for counsel they could not employ. But everything depended on the Judge—everything depended, also, on the prosecuting counsel, and on the way in which the prosecuting counsel was allowed to deal with the prisoner. There were such things as fair questions and unfair questions, and a prisoner was protected by counsel who could guard him against questions on cross-examination which ought not to be put, and
    108
    even if the prisoner had not counsel in England when such questions were put, the Judge himself would protect the prisoner. But what assurance had they that before the Resident Magistrates—before the removable magistrates—any such protection would be afforded? Now, he read a short time ago a letter written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) relating his experience at the trial of Mr. Wilfrid Blunt before a County Court Judge in Ireland, and he saw there that the right hon. Gentleman expressed his horror and consternation at the spirit and manner, at the unfairness with which the trial was conducted both on the part of the prosecuting counsel and on the part of the Judge. That was the impression on the mind of an English gentleman who was accustomed to the administration of justice, in one case, and that a notorious one. That was not the case of an obscure individual, but one in which the Judge know perfectly well that the eyes of the newspapers were on him, and it might, therefore, be assumed that unusual pains were taken by this gentleman to give, at any rate, an appearance of impartiality to the proceedings on his part. Now, if this happened in the green tree, what would happen in the dry? Could anyone say that anything had been done which would give any English or Irish Member the right to believe in the impartiality of the Irish Resident Magistrates? Since this matter was before the House in 1886, he (Mr. Hunter) had read the criminal cases and reports of trials before the Resident Magistrates in Ireland, and those trials had reminded him, not of anything within his experience, but of State trials which took place 250 years ago. If the present English Judges were like the Judges of the Stuart period, if prosecutors were like Lord Coke and other gentlemen who prosecuted in those days, he (Mr. Hunter) should be the last man to vote for a Bill of this kind, for instead of it being a weapon for the defence of the innocent, it would probably be used as an instrument for convicting prisoners when the prosecutor desired to do so. The Judge would draw attention to admissions made, and enlarge upon them and magnify them elaborately—he would drive home every single admission as a most valuable piece of evidence;

    109
    but when the prisoner said anything which was in his own favour, if the Judge was not honest and fair and impartial, what he would do would be this: He would point out to the jury—if he had to deal with a jury—that such and such statementsrested on no better authority than the evidence of the prisoner himself. He (Mr. Hunter) could, therefore, well believe that in Ireland this Bill would operate to the greatest injustice and hardship, and the greatest cruelty, and would utterly and entirely defeat the object of justice—namely, the discovery of truth. In the present day, in England, we no doubt had impartial justice; but he would just quote one or two sentences from the time of Sir Walter Raleigh, to show the way in which prisoners used to be treated by Attorney Generals in those days. Just imagine if an Attorney General addressed prisoners in that way at the present time, how far they would be from passing such a Rule as that now before the House.
    "Sir Walter Raleigh interposed. The Attorney General said to the prisoner: 'Thou art a monster; thou hast an English face, but a Spanish heart.' Then when Sir Walter Raleigh objected that no evidence had been given against him, and said 'If my Lord Cobham be a traitor what is that to me?' the Attorney General said: 'All that he did was nothing to thee, thou viper! For I "thou" thee thou traitor!'"
    "Would the present Government tolerate a rule such as that contained in this Bill when admonished by such a prosecuting counsel as this, and before such a court? To put the whole argument in a nutshell, he (Mr. Hunter) said that the examination of a prisoner as a witness in a case was not in itself necessarily an advantage to a prisoner, nor calculated to promote the cause of justice. It depended entirely upon the way in which justice was administered. It depended upon the Judge, and it depended upon the counsel. It was a powerful weapon, but it was a weapon which could as easily be used against the prisoner as in his favour; and he could not entertain any doubt, from the conduct of the Government in regard to this Bill, that their object was not merely to improve the law of England, but to give an extra example of the principle of that odious Bill that was passed last year.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid, the Government now proposed a measure which they declared was much de
    110
    sired by public opinion in England; but the Irish Members now came forward and said—"What you say may be correct; it may be true that the measure is demanded by the English public; it may be true that the public opinion of England demands that a prisoner should have the right of being examined on his own behalf in criminal cases; but, at any rate, there is no demand of that kind in Ireland. We, who represent Ireland in this House, are hostile to such a measure, and believe that so far from its being a benefit to Irish prisoners, it will, on the contrary, too often be used to their prejudice and destruction; and we ask that this measure should not be extended to Ireland." Now, the Irish Members were met by the declaration on the part of the Government that what they had to consider was, in the words of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), a broad and great principle, and that it was not with reference to Irish needs, or the local circumstances of Ireland, that the measure must be considered, but by those broad principles which it was said were embodied in the Bill, and which it was generally agreed must be applied to the whole of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland threw out a challenge which he (Mr. Maurice Healy) thought was a very fair one. He taunted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) with what he considered a novel consideration as proceeding from those on the Opposition side of the House—that was to say, that it did not follow that because a measure was a good and desirable one for England the same measure was good and desirable for Ireland. It did not appear to him (Mr. Maurice Healy) that this was a novel principle coming from this side of the House. It appeared to him that it was because he endeavoured to lay down a principle of that kind in 1887 that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was condemned for having banished political economy to Saturn. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had laid down what he (Mr. Maurice Healy) considered a sound principle, and that was, that in applying a measure of this kind it should also be applied to Ireland, and that those

    111
    who resisted it should show that the circumstances of Ireland materially differed from those of England. That was a fair challenge to make; and he (Mr. Maurice Healy) would answer that the case of the Irish Members was that the circumstances of Ireland in connection with the administration of justice and in matters with which this measure dealt were such that the Bill ought not to be applied to Ireland. He would quote, as that of a distinguished authority on this subject, the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the present President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) two years ago in one of the speeches he addressed to his constituents. Speaking to his constituents in Bristol two years ago the right hon. Gentleman said—"Unfortunately, to many persons the administration of justice appeared as a foe, and not as a friend." Now, that was the whole case of the Irish Members in regard to this measure. The whole case of the Irish Members might be compressed into that sentence of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that to many persons in Ireland the administration of justice appeared as a foe, and not as a friend. That was the ground they took up, that they maintained that because that state of things prevailed there, though what was urged with regard to the measure might be true as applied to England and Scotland, the arguments had no validity when they came to consider the application of the measure to Ireland.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present,
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid, he asked whether it was not an unfortunate thing that time after time it should happen in that House that those who represented the vast bulk of the inhabitants of Ireland should demand certain measures, and that time after time the Government should set their wishes aside and refuse those measures; and that time after time measures emanating from the Front Bench opposite should be thrust down the throats of the Irish people in spite of the strenuous resistance of their Representatives? The Government proceeded on the principle that whatever the Irish Representatives asked in this House they should not
    112
    get, and whatever they resisted and complained of they should have, whether they liked it or not. He would ask whether that was the proper principle on which to proceed in carrying on the legislation of this country? As it had already been asked in this debate to-night, what duties were Irish Members supposed to perform in this House? What was the value of their representation here if, when the wishes of the Irish people were expressed by those who were sent to this House to give voice to their opinions, they were set aside by right hon. Gentlemen opposite and treated as though they never existed? He maintained that the state of things which existed in England, and which was considered by hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite to justify this measure in England, did not exist in Ireland. In England they had none of that friction between the people and the forces of the Crown and administration of the law which unquestionably existed in Ireland. In England they had none of these political prosecutions which they too often had in Ireland. In England the administrators of the law were popular with the people; the law was carried out in sympathy with the people; English views and opinions were constantly consulted, and hostility between the people and the law was avoided with the utmost care. The very antithesis of this state of things existed in Ireland, and yet they were told that because the measure now before the House was fit and proper for this country, it was equally applicable to the totally different situation that prevailed in Ireland. Now, he was not going to labour the point which had been made more than once in this debate as to the way in which criminal prosecutions were conducted in Ireland from that which prevailed in this country; but he very well remembered how struck he was when he was told once by a gentleman who was concerned in many criminal prosecutions what took place in Ireland a few years ago. He remembered well the barrister, who defended a prisoner in a particular case—he thought it was in regard to a charge of conspiracy to murder or some charge of that kind—telling him that the trial was before a Judge and a special jury of the City of Cork, the prisoner being found guilty, and that when his (Mr. Maurice Healy's) informant went into the

    113
    Bar room, after the trial was over and the news came in that the unhappy man was convicted, the principal counsel for the Crown pulled his handkerchief out of his pocket and waved it over his head in exultation at having got the man 10 years' penal servitude. That was not the spirit in which cases were conducted in England, and he (Mr. Maurice Healy) declared that so long as they were conducted in that way in Ireland the effect of this, so far from being an advantage to accused persons, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite claimed for it, would be wrested to their destruction. As to the Maamtrasna case, it was said that if this Bill had been in existence at that time, the prisoner Myles Joyce, who was believed to have been innocent, would have been examined, and would have been able to give his version of the matter, and that, therefore, the miscarriage of justice that they all complained of could never have taken place. He (Mr. Maurice Healy) would say to English Members who made that statement that they little knew what went on in connection with criminal trials in Ireland. He supposed that while he had been in the Legal Profession he had had as much experience of criminal prosecutions as most people. He had defended prisoners of all kinds, criminals and non-criminals, and his experience was that no matter how innocent a prisoner might be, and however convinced they might be that he was tolling the truth, the most dangerous thing the defence could do was to produce any witness whatever. Over and over again he (Mr. Maurice Healy) had carefully to consider with counsel whether he should not entirely refuse to produce any witness for the prisoner, having regard to the manner in which these witnesses would be treated by the Crown Counsel and the use which would be made of the necessary mistakes which ignorant peasants would inevitably make in being cross-examined and cross-hackled by the counsel as to what might be utterly irrelevant details. It would be the very same thing when instead of putting up an alibi witness or a witness to prove the case, they put up the prisoner to prove it himself. They would be always met by the argument, "If the prisoner was wicked enough to commit this crime do you think he would have any hesitation in going into the witness-box and committing perjury?"
    114
    That was an argument which would be used with fatal effect with the jury, and, therefore, it would come to this, that everything that the prisoner could say that would prejudice him, every admission that he would make and everything that would fall from him and could connect him with the crime, would be used against him, whilst everything that he said in his own favour would be treated with the observation, "You cannot rely on what he says, for anyone wicked enough to commit this crime would have no hesitation in going into the box and committing perjury." It was said that there were a series of offences under the existing law in connection with which prisoners were already examined, and that what was wanted was simply to extend that series. It was said that if it was possible to examine a prisoner as a witness in one case, it was possible in all cases. Well, he (Mr. Maurice Healy) denied that. The cases where it was possible to examine a prisoner were of a special character. Take a case under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, for instance, and cases under the Explosives Act, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir. Henry James) had referred to. What was the fact? Why under the Explosives Act the duty was thrown on the prisoner of clearing himself. If he was found in possession of explosives his guilt was assumed until he cleared himself. Unless there was a clause in the Act to the effect that the prisoner should have an opportunity of clearing himself he would be necessarily convicted in every case. That was why a prisoner was examined in his own defence under the Explosives Act, and for almost a similar reason the law was changed in the late Criminal Law Amendment Act, because, in the nature of the offences, there were never likely to be more than two persons present—namely, the prosecutor and the prisoner; and, that being so, it would be most unjust to the accused party not to be allowed to give his version of what had taken place. That was the ground upon which the enactment in that case was defended—a special ground which would have application in nine out of 10 cases. This was the case in a whole series of Acts of Parliament—though a very small series—under which the prisoner had a right to be examined in his

    115
    own defence. He could show the whole set of circumstances which induced the Legislature in each case to depart from the general rule that a prisoner should not be allowed to be examined on his own behalf. He said that, in this matter, the analogy of England did not apply—he held that the proper analogy in this case would be that of England 200 years ago when libel and other criminal prosecutions were of daily occurrence, and when Englishmen had to deal with such Judges as Jeffries and Colepepper, if it had been proposed that, under such circumstances, a prisoner should go into the box to be brow-beaten and attacked by the corrupt Judges of that day. He maintained that if they wanted an analogy in this matter they should riot take that of the England of to-day, but the England of 200 years ago, when prosecutions for political offences were common and they had the same state of things prevalent in England as now existed in Ireland, political offences being frequently punished as crimes, and the whole of the country rankling under the oppression. Repeating what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) he declared that it was the worst pedantry to say that because this Bill would be proper for England, therefore it would be proper for Ireland. Then again, they were told that the Bill was proper for England whether public opinion was in its favour or not. It was said that in a matter of this kind there could be no real public opinion, as the matter was one more or less for specialists. It was held that the House should take the public opinion of those who were most familiar with the question. Well, decided in that way, he had no doubt the Government would be able to show that in this country public opinion was in favour of the Bill. But how were they to judge of English public opinion in the matter? They had a means of doing it by taking the opinion of the Parliamentary Representatives of the people, and he maintained that if they wanted to get the public opinion of Ireland they must take it in the same way. The Irish Members, however, were told that in order to find what Irish public opinion was the House must not take the statements of Gentlemen on the Irish Benches, but these of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for
    116
    Ireland and the hon. and right hon. Members who sat by his side. That was the merest travesty of Parliamentary Government. It would be better that Parliament should not continue at all than that measures should be thrust down the throats of the Irish people in defiance of the wishes of nine-tenths of their Representatives. One day the Irish Members come here and asked for a particular measure, as they did yesterday, and they were voted down by horse, foot, and dragoons. To-day the Government bring in this Bill, and the Irish Members resist it, but they were not to be allowed to have a voice in the matter. He said, therefore, to the Government, let them expel the Irish Members from the House, but do not have this travesty of Parliamentary representation which was illustrated by the Government yesterday, and which was being further illustrated by the proceedings to-night.
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCEsaid, he had long taken an interest in the subject-matter of the Bill, and he was surprised at the objection taken to it on the opposite side. He was also disappointed that the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) had not enlightened the House more on the merits of the view he took. The right hon. and learned Member said the main reason why those on the Government side of the House should not support the Bill, and should not apply it to Ireland, was because their motives were liable to be misrepresented by the Irish Members; but he (Mr. Lawrence) would ask if ever they could go to ask a character from those Members? Was it not a fact that the best of their motives were always misrepresented? He (Mr. Lawrence), at all events, would not decline to support the application of the Bill to Ireland, because his motives were liable to be misrepresented by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. For instance, the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and other Irish Members said it was impossible to convince the Irish people that justice was fairly administered in Ireland. An Irish Member had even seemed to think that the Irish Judges were as bad as Scroggs and Jeffries.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCE, continuing, said, when they heard such sentiments as those coming from hon. Members below

    117
    the Gangway it was impossible not to look upon them as exaggerations, wholly incapable of proof. If the argument was that we could not convince the Irish people of the justice of modern judicial decisions in Ireland, he was prepared to give up trying to do so, and to take the course he believed to be right. The House was asked to pass the Amendment, because the magistrates in Ireland were removable, and therefore would act unfairly towards the prisoners brought before them. But even the Judges in England were not removable only as long as they behaved rightly while they sat on the Bench, and so in Ireland, he believed, that no magistrate would be removed as long as he dealt fairly to the criminal who stood before him, the person who charged him, and the Crown who put him there. The Amendment, therefore, if it was carried, would practically amount to a Vote of Want of Confidence in the integrity of the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor, who might have the removal of the magistrate. The Amendment was a perfectly inconsequential Amendment, and unworthy of support by men who, like himself, believed that the Irish magistrates were only concerned in dealing out equal justice between man and man, between the Crown and the people who might find fault with it. He wished to point out that the measure before the House was of a permanent character. The legislation, such as that of last year, was in one sense of the word of a permanent character, inasmuch as it was not a temporary Bill, yet they all hoped it was a measure which would cease at some time to be law. But the present Bill was a measure the general principle of which applied to all judicial affairs, and therefore it was most fitting that it should obtain, not only in England and Wales and Scotland, but in Ireland too. It was, in fact, generally applicable to all systems of criminal procedure in the Three Kingdoms, and such being the fact they might fairly vote for it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) compared this kind of legislation to the Local Government Bill, and said the Government were inconsistent in refusing to apply the former Bill to Ireland and in applying the latter. The right hon. Gentleman must know per-
    118
    fectly well that the reason why the Government deferred granting Local Government to Ireland was because the Irish people were too much given to lawlessness, and the reason why the present measure was applied was two-fold; first, because it would prevent any suspicion of the miscarriage of justice such as was said to have occurred at Maamtrasna; and next, just as on account of the lawlessness they refused Local Government, so they were called to make the law firmer because there was this lawless spirit abroad. If they did not pass the Bill that Session, they might wait until doomsday before the Irish people became so enamoured of the law as to come and ask them for a measure to secure that the right man should go to prison. He was glad the Government were resolved to stand fast. As to gaining the goodwill of the Members below the Gangway, he did not in the least expect them to do that, but if they went forward with careful legislation, the time would come when Ireland would appreciate their motives and do justice to their actions.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that this question of the extension or non-extension of this Bill to Ireland was merely a matter of expediency. The question was whether, being desirous of seeing the Bill applied to England and Scotland, they were wise in attempting to hamper it with considerations of a political character. The whole matter was fully discussed in the Grand Committee some years ago, and they all knew that it was distinctly upon political grounds that the Irish Members objected to the application of this principle to their country. It seamed to him the question was whether the Government should adopt the easy method of applying the Bill to England, or whether they should hamper its progress and its efficiency by endeavouring to apply it to Ireland against the wishes of the Irish people and their Representatives. Perhaps they had better leave Ireland alone in dealing with this question. Putting that measure aside, he was glad to say that he concurred most heartily in the principle of the Bill. That principle was that in criminal cases an accused person should no longer have his mouth shut. It seemed to longer that that had been one of the most extraordinary and

    119
    incredible principles of English law, and when this Bill was passed the country would wonder that that superstition had continued so long. The principle of the Bill was that the mouth of a prisoner should no longer be shut, but that he should have an opportunity—he did not say should be compelled, for he did not know how they could compel a man to speak, as they did not apply the torture now-a-days—of giving his own version of the circumstances which had led to his prosecution; that, in fact, he should be invited to speak. But he doubted whether the principle of the Bill was put before the House in a right form. He had had great experience in dealing with the system under which prisoners were examined, and his own impression was that the form in which the Bill was put before the House now, and had been put before the House on previous occasions as applicable to England, was not the right form. He dissented from the view that they could not put before a Court of Law evidence which was not sworn. The examination of a prisoner should be a judicial examination of an accused person and not the examination of a witness. That was the law which prevailed in all countries except England and the United States of America, which drew their law from English law. It was the case in Scotland. It was proposed to apply the Bill to Scotland, but it seemed to him that it would be very difficult to do so in its present form, because they already had an examination of an accused person in Scotland. In Scotland they had never shut the mouth of an accused person, but, on the contrary, had always invited him to make a statement or a declaration. The first thing which happened when an accused person was brought before a Justice in Scotland was his being invited to make, what they called, a declaration, and this form constituted nothing more nor less than a judicial examination of that accused person. He had also had some experience of the working of this principle of law in India. In that country they had the advantage, not of an antiquated law such as prevailed in England, but of the most modern law made by the most modern Jurists, and what were the provisions of this Code in regard to the matter under discussion. Why, in this Code they had nothing of the nature of
    120
    the accused person appearing as a witness, but they had a judicial examination of an accused person. That was the law of India and that was the law of Europe, including Scotland, and it seemed to him that it was the law of all countries that were not prejudiced by English law. It seemed to him that if they adopted this system of determining by law that a man's mouth should only be open when he appeared as a witness on oath in a case, they would be involving themselves in a very great difficulty. They might make provision by law, in the manner proposed by the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), to prevent the refusal or the assent of an accused person to give evidence being cited in the case against him. After all, that might be the law, but they could not prevent the minds of the jury being influenced, as they would be reasonably influenced, by the fact that an accused person had not come forward to give his own statement of the case. That being the case, it seemed to him that a prisoner would be practically forced to make a statement, and it appeared to him (Sir George Campbell) that it would be very right that so much compulsion should be applied. It was right in the interest of the innocent and the guilty alike that a certain moral compulsion should be exercised upon the accused in order to get them to make statements and say what was their account of the matter; but it seemed to him, to be placing a man in a very peculiar position to insist upon his taking an oath. It was all very well to do so, perhaps, and to adopt the existing system in cases of secondary degree; but when they came to cases such as murder, he asked, was it right or fair that they should drive a man to come forward and say upon oath whether he had committed the crime or not? That would operate as an irresistible temptation to a man guilty of murder to add to the peril in which he stood as to his life, peril to his soul, by perjury. The kind of judicial examination he referred to would be more efficacious in getting out the truth than any forcing of a man to make a statement on oath. He thought some matters would have to be settled in regard to the Bill. At present, apart from the giving of evidence on oath, it was doubtful whether or not a prisoner could make a statement in his own de-

    121
    fence. The practice of English Judges varied very much in that respect, some Judges permitting it and others refusing to do so. It was desirable that that question should be settled, and, for his own part, he was anxious to see it settled in the direction of allowing a prisoner to make a statement in his own defence. He thought that the should be read a second time, but that it should be considerably modified, and perhaps it might be so modified.
    SIR WILLIAM EWARTsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) had assumed too much that Irish opinion was in favour of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). On the contrary, he (Sir William Ewart) had no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland would hail with pleasure the passing of this measure. What was this Bill? It was simply a Bill enabling a prisoner to give evidence, if he wished, and enabling a husband or wife to give evidence in a case against the other. He confessed that he had hoard with some surprise the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. After this question had been so thoroughly thrashed out, and public opinion had been so fully formed upon it, he thought the hon. Gentleman was very bold in coming forward practically to offer it opposition, and especially when he himself had said that there was really no difference of opinion as to the passing of the measure for the United Kingdom. No case had been made out, to his (Sir William Ewart's) mind, for excluding Ireland from the operations of the Bill. The opposition had entirely failed; indeed the reasons given by the hon. and learned Member for Longford were altogether in favour of the Bill. If the Irish Judges were corrupt—which he indignantly denied—it was all the more important and needful that it should be in the power of the accused to clear himself. He was, as far as possible, in favour of equal laws for all parts of the United Kingdom, and on every occasion, as far as possible, he should give his support to equal laws. On the present occasion he had much pleasure in supporting the application of
    122
    the Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom.
    MR. T. P. GILLsaid, he felt bound, on behalf of the constituency that he had the honour to represent, to enter his protest against this Bill. He believed that it contained a very dangerous principle. He was against the principle of the Bill altogether, but he was especially against it on account of the proposal to extend it to Ireland. He thought the Bill a mistake, and it seemed to him, in his humble judgment, a rather curious thing that the producers and the supporters of it during the whole course of the debate, though it was a Bill proposing to introduce into English law a principle accepted else-where, say in France, had never produced anything like an array of testimony to show from experience that the principle was one which worked to the approval of the lawyers of France or other countries. In his opinion, and he thought this would be borne out by everyone who had followed even recently the course of certain trials in France, the principle of this Bill was one which, at any rate in France, had not been an unmixed good. The principle they were about to give up, that of excluding a prisoner from making a statement or submitting himself to cross-examination, had, no doubt, a great many drawbacks. He should like to know any human principle that had not; but had the principle they were proposing to introduce no drawbacks? He held that it had, and very decided ones. He believed that the principle of making the Judge a seeker out of evidence, and an examiner of a prisoner as a witness in a case, was one which would interfere very seriously with that judicial and impartial frame of mind which had so distinguished the English Judges. That judicial and impartial frame of mind had raised the English Judges above the Judges of any other country in the world. The English Judges remained in a higher atmosphere, and, if they were asked to step down from that higher atmosphere and to examine prisoners, the effect would be to interfere with that judicial frame of mind which had always characterized them. Look at any trial in France—at the Pranzini trial for instance. He (Mr. T. P. Gill) had read the manner in which the Judge

    123
    at that trial examined and cross-examined and bullied and threatened that prisoner. It was the most scandalous thing that ever occurred. The Judge taunted the man with keeping back the truth. He said—"You were cruel to your mother, why should you not be cruel to your mistress?" and so on. Then look at the still more recent case, the Vignor affair, in connection with the trial of M. Wilson. They had there the Judge d'Instruction, who entertained at dinner one of the defendants in the case. He gave the man a rich dinner, and plied him with wine, and over the walnuts and the wine he succeeded in extracting damaging information from him, and after that he talked over the telephone wire with another of the defendants, changing his voice and pretending he was M. Wilson. Why did he do that? Why, because in France the constant effect of this system on the judicial frame of mind had been to transform the Judge more or less into a seeker out of evidence and a runner down of the prisoner. The glory of a Judge in France consisted, just as much as if he were a Crown Prosecutor in bringing a prisoner to conviction. That Judge had carried the thing so far that it became a public scandal, and he was dismissed from his office. That was only a few weeks ago, but let them take any trial that occurred in France, and they would find that a Judge in Francs behaved on the Bench in the manner in which he examined a prisoner and ran him down, in a way which would be shocking to the sentiments which had grown up in England with regard to the course of law. He (Mr. T. P. Gill) further said that the principle was a dangerous one, though they were rushing upon it with a light heart. The House seemed to be taking for granted that it was all very fine. He had no doubt that there was a great deal to be said for it, and that there were a great many cases in which justice would benefit by having this principle in force, but he thought that the cases in which it would do an injury to the cause of justice, and create almost a scandal, would be more numerous still. He did not think the House had properly weighed the pros and cons of the case. That being so as to the principle generally, how much more were the Members for Ireland justified in oppo-
    124
    sing the application of such a principle to Ireland. The Judges in England, and the Crown Prosecutors in England, as had been universally conceded, lived in a higher atmosphere, in a more impartial, a more calm, and a more just atmosphere than the Judges and Crown Prosecutors in Ireland; and if this practice of allowing a Judge to cross-examine a prisoner, and to sift his evidence, were injurious in the case of men who were entirely impartial and lived in an impartial atmosphere, what would be the effect in Ireland on Judges who were simply fresh from being Crown Prosecutors and reeking with an atmosphere like that of Green Street? He knew a case where a man was tried for his life—the Gould case. The Crown Prosecutor did his best to get Gould convicted. He made a most eloquent denunciation of the prisoner on his first trial. The prisoner came up for trial a second time, and the Crown Prosecutor, who prosecuted him on the first trial, was sitting on the Bench in the case of the second trial. Fancy a case like that. In Ireland they had such jobbery and partizanship in connection with the administration of the law that even a Judge failed to see any impropriety in sitting on the Bench and trying a prisoner on a second trial whom he had himself prosecuted on his first trial. Could such a thing occur in England? He ventured to say that no one could get up and contend that it could. To say that they were introducing on equal terms a principle such as that contained in the Bill into England and Ireland was to make a most monstrous and unjustifiable assertion. The whole course of feeling in Courts of Justice in Ireland was that both the Judge on the Bench—this might be an injustice to a great many of the Judges in Ireland, but let that be as it might—the feeling was that both the Judges on the Bench and the Crown Prosecutors were excessively anxious to obtain convictions. The belief in the popular mind was that when a man was unfortunate enough to get into the Dock there under any circumstance whatever, the only person not bent on running the prisoner to earth was the counsel engaged in his defence. In this country he believed that a Crown Prosecutor would occasionally give up his brief when he was convinced that a prisoner was inno-

    125
    cent. ["No, no!"] Well, some hon. Member said that. ["No, no!"] Well, someone had said the converse of that at any rate, that was to say, that the counsel for a guilty person would some-times gives up his brief when he thought the prisoner guilty, and it was only fair to assume that where an opposing advocate thought a person innocent he would also be moved to throw up his brief. They might, however, live till doomsday before they would see such a thing as that occur in Ireland. As had been stated in a newspaper article not long ago, the whole purpose of an Irish Crown Prosecutor was to get a verdict, hook or by crook. The gentlemen on the Bench in Ireland were gentlemen who had stepped up from the position of Crown Prosecutor to that of Judge, and, that being so, it appeared to him that a case of irresistible force had been made out against the introduction of the principle contained in the Bill in Ireland. He thought it an unwise principle, and one the advantages of which would not come near to overpowering its disadvantages. In the case of Ireland there was no reason whatsoever why this principle should be thrust down the throats of the Irish people against the wishes of the vast majority of their Representatives. Goodness only knew that they had had instances enough in which the inequalities existing between the two countries had been exemplified of late, and it appeared to him that the House of Commons was making itself absolutely grotesque by these contradictions. There had been three measures introduced into the House of Commons within the space of some months. One of these proposed to make a tremendous change in the law of Ireland, but it did not propose to apply the same change to England. Another of these measures proposed to make a radical extension of liberty in England and not to extend it to Ireland; and now the Government brought forward a proposal which they said was good for England and they gratuitously proposed to extend it to Ireland, although the Irish Members entreated them with all the warmth they could command not to do so. In spite of the wishes of the Irish people the measure was to be thrust down their throats. He thought that the most prejudiced mind in the House would agree that there was a gross disregard of popu-
    126
    lar opinion in Ireland in this House when it sought so to legislate. He should hope that the protest the Irish Members had made to-night would have some effect on the Government, though he was afraid he was much too sanguine in entertaining such a view. At any rate, disregarded as his opinion might be on the question, he had felt it to be his duty, and he distinctly agreed with all his Colleagues in giving a most determined opposition to the application of this Bill to Ireland.
    COLONEL WARINGsaid, that the argument of the depravity of the French Courts did not apply in the smallest degree to the present case, because it was not proposed to put in the power of any Judge to cross-examine a prisoner under any circumstances whatever. He rose principally to protest against the universal assumption of hon. Members below the Gangway to speak for the people of Ireland. It was enough for them to express the opinion of the people of Ireland on the question of Home Rule when they had taken steps to consult them on the matter under discussion; but even then he ventured to think the Gentlemen who were notoriously nominated by a committee—which, though it might be either small or large, was not the constituency of Ireland—had no right to assume to speak in the name of the entire people. He would not venture to speak for the portion of Ireland which he had the honour to represent, because he had not evolved out of his own inner consciousness what their opinion would be. He did not assume to have the gift of prophecy, as hon. Members opposite did; but he believed if the question were put before them they would one and all be decidedly in favour of the provisions of the Bill being extended to Ireland. When he practised at the Bar he considered the want of such a provision a fatal defect in the English Law as compared with that of other countries. He hoped no representation of the supposed opinion of Ireland would prevent the Government pushing the Bill through for the whole Kingdom.
    MR.NEVILLEsaid, it seemed to him that there was a fallacy lurking under the arguments of the opponents of the Amendment,

    127
    which ought to be put plainly before the House. It was said to Liberals that if they accepted the principle of the measure for England, they must be wrong and inconsistent in supporting the Amendment; because if the principle was good for one case, it must necessarily be good in the other. That seemed to him (Mr. Neville) to be fallacious, for this reason; because he did not think that by accepting the principle of the measure they committed themselves to the opinion that it was a principle to be applied to all places and under all circumstances. There could be no doubt that, originally, the exemption of prisoners from giving evidence was intended to be for the protection of the prisoner. He had not such a low opinion of our legal ancestors as to suppose they were utterly wrong in the view they took at the time of what was for the prisoner's benefit, or that the prisoner would have been better if he had in old days been allowed to give evidence in England. The reason why he and he believed the majority of the English Liberal Members on that side of the House would support the measure, was because they believed, in the existing circumstances of England, it would be for the benefit of innocent persons who might be accused of crimes, because they and most of the English people had full confidence in the administration of justice in that country; and if they took the opinion of those persons who might be in the position of being tried before a Judge and jury in an English Court, they would tell them they were perfectly satisfied that they would get a fair trial. He was not there to say the contrary was the fact in Ireland. It would be utterly presumptuous for him to say anything on the question, for he did not profess to have any personal knowledge of the administration of justice in Ireland; but he would say that it was not a question for English Members to decide. He could not conceive with what object the Representatives of the Irish people were there, if the House was always to turn a deaf ear to those Representatives and to the feelings and wishes of the people of Ireland. The hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) had characterized the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James)
    128
    as extraordinary. He (Mr. Neville) was not surprised at that statement, because it appeared to him that the Solicitor General did not in the least understand what the right hon. and learned Member for Bury's argument was. That did not astonish him (Mr. Neville), because that right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking from a standpoint which unfortunately hon. Members opposite seemed perfectly unable of taking up for themselves. What he understood the right hon. and learned Member for Bury to mean was, that the reason why he supported the measure before the House—and he had himself brought in a measure to the same effect on a former occasion—was that he believed it would be in the interests of innocent persons accused of crime; but he did not for a moment conceal from himself, or from the House, that if the giving of evidence by prisoners was something liable to abuse, it might be used against the interests of the innocent person accused of crime. And though he had perfect confidence that in this country it would not be so, and though he knew that the mass of the people in the country so regarded the question, he understood from the Irish Members that that was not the point of view adopted by the Irish people, and, therefore, without expressing any opinion himself as to whether or not there was any truth in the allegation that there was a difference in the atmosphere of the Criminal Courts in England and in Ireland, he said it was enough for his argument if the Representatives of the Irish people said so. The right hon. and learned Member for Bury said that if the Irish representation meant anything at all, it meant that great attention should be paid to the views of the Representatives of the Irish people; and in a case in which they were dealing with the interests of the Irish people, and in which the interests of the country were not suffered to enter, he would give way to their opinion, and would not be a party to forcing what was brought forward as a remedial measure upon the Irish people in the teeth of their Representatives. The argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman had, he thought, proved clear and convincing to many Members on both sides of the House. It had been said by Members on the Go-

    129
    vernment side of the House that the worse the atmosphere of the Courts, the more important the application of this measure to Ireland. He did not think such a position could be honestly and sincerely maintained. He did not believe for one moment that if the Representatives of the English constituencies had not unbounded faith in the fairness of criminal trials as they take place in this country, they would got a single man to vote for any alteration in the law, and they understood from the Irish Members that, unfortunately, they did not take the same view of criminal prosecutions in Ireland. The reason why he ventured to protest against the course adopted by the Government was, that it seemed to him that, in habitually neglecting the representations of the Irish Members, and refusing them a share in the boons in which they asked to be permitted to share, and insisting on their being partakers in a measure which they had resisted as strongly as they could, they took a course which could not lead to the reasonable and just government of Ireland. He would add his humble voice to those already raised on his side in urging the Government, even now, to pass the measure as one applying to England only, and not to insist on forcing it on Ireland. If the Government persisted in the course they had adopted, they were only putting one further argument in the hands of their opponents as showing that they were determined to proceed in a course of utter disregard to the representations of the Irish people whenever they submitted them to that House.
    MR. CHANCEsaid, that it seemed to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in introducing this Bill had hardly given to the House the idea that he was dealing with a Bill of any importance. He introduced it in a few words, and even in those he seemed to deal not only with assumptions, but with what appeared to be false arguments. This Bill—this precious document—had been 20 years hatching, and, remembering that fact, anyone would have expected it to be a very perfect one when produced, but they had just heard from a scotch Member that it would be absolutely unworkable without the introduction of a new section into the Scotch Procedure Act. He (Mr. Chance) looked upon this
    130
    measure as one to compel a prisoner to give evidence on his trial, and not only that, but also to give evidence on preliminarly proceedings. Although under the law, as it at present stood, a prisoner might reserve his defence without any observation being made upon the fact, in the future, if this Bill became law, he would be put in the position that the magistrate presiding at the hearing of the charge against him might inform him that if he were an innocent man it was his duty to go into the box, and that if he were not he could adopt the protection which the law gave him and keep out of the box. The result of this would be that they would have jurymen prejudiced against the prisoner in consequence of what took place at the preliminary examination, and even before the trial had taken place. The Attorney General spoke of hardship occurring under the present law. He told them of the case of two prisoners, one of whom was married while the other was not, but lived with a paramour. The married man had not the benefit of his wife's evidence; but the other man had the benefit of evidence given by his paramour. He (Mr. Chance) somewhat irregularly interrupted the hon. and learned Gentleman, and somewhat to his surprise he discovered that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the result of the trial. It seemed to him, therefore, that the case did not afford an illustration of any hardship. There might have been hardship if the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone on to tell the House that the married man was convicted and that the other man, who had the benefit of his paramour's evidence, escaped. The Attorney General then fell back upon the favourite argument of the Front Bench; for he told them that the Judges were in favour of this change. He (Mr. Chance) did not know that Judges, in dealing with changes of the law, had been celebrated for their wisdom or the large-mindedness of their views. It was mentioned in the House last session that Judges were unanimously opposed to the alteration of the law which would prevent men being hanged for thefts of goods worth 5s. and upwards. The Judges then prophecied that there would be an enormous increase of offences against property; but when, in face of

    131
    their opposition, the cruel and contemptible law of that time was changed, no evil results were known to follow. He thought that in moving the second reading of a Bill of this kind the Attorney General might have found some better advocates than the Judges. Now, he came to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke), who made what he must undoubtedly call one of those able speeches which were more suitable for the atmosphere of a Court of Justice with a jury in the box than for the atmosphere of the House of Commons. Curiously enough, the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was the first example of the evil operation of this Bill, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) was ill-advised enough to get, so to speak, in the witness-box to defend and explain his own position, and, therefore, he was pounced upon by the Solicitor General, who showed, to his own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the Supporters of the Government, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury had damaged his case and deserved the verdict to go against him. The Solicitor General spoke of the difference between the atmosphere of an English Law Court and that of an Irish Law Court; but the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman amounted to this—that because he could prophecy that this Bill would be good for England it should therefore be good for Ireland. His own observations, however, were more or less destructive of his argument, because he commenced by assuming, in his own favour, an absolute unanimous opinion in favour of this Bill. He should have gone on to show that the conditions under which law was administered in Ireland were the same as those under which law was administered in England; but he did no such thing. It seemed to him (Mr. Chance) that it rested with the supporters of this Bill to make out a case for it in Ireland; but they totally ignored that branch of their duty, and they wandered away into the most vague and extraordinary assumptions. It was a curious fact that the most strenuous supporters of this Bill were utterly ignorant of the proceedings in Courts of Justice in Ireland. If they knew as much as he and his hon. Friends did of
    132
    those proceedings, their advocacy of the extension of this Bill to Ireland would be much less powerful than it was. Certainly there was one Irish lawyer put up to speak in favour of this Bill—namely, the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden), but the hon. and learned Gentleman knew very little indeed of the administration of Criminal Law in Ireland; happily for himself, up to the present he had been engaged in the serene and calm atmosphere of the Equity Courts. He (Mr. Chance) did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had ever defended a prisoner in his life; certainly, he had never acted as a Crown Prosecutor. Therefore, it seemed that the evidence in favour of the Bill given upon the Government side of the House was notable for the fact that the Gentlemen who gave that evidence knew nothing about the subject. What was the reason for this new-born zeal for the administration of law in Ireland, and for the protection of Irish prisoners? During the whole of last Session and the Session before the House was wearied by statements from the Treasury Bench that prisoners in Ireland could not be convicted; but tonight he had not heard from the Treasury Bench of any case in which a prisoner was convicted when he was innocent of the crime he was accused of. The attitude had been to assume that in every case when a prisoner was convicted he was convicted properly. In such circumstances it could not be surprising that Members of the House who sat upon the Irish Benches looked with a certain degree of suspicion upon this now-born zeal in the interests of prisoners in Ireland on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they were so zealous and so desirous of improving the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland, he advised them to keep the pledges they made in this House, and not to continue under the stigma of being guilty of what was described in the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) as a dishonourable breach of faith. The administration of law would be less unsatisfactory if, in the first place, there were appeals from magistrates who were not only removable, but Executive officers; and if, in the second place, the Executive in Ireland, when they desired to procure the conviction

    133
    of political opponents, ceased to resort to the disgraceful practice of packing juries. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University (Mr. Madden) had still another argument. He said that oven granting that justice was not satisfactorily administered in Ireland, the right which this Bill gave would be a protection for the prisoner—that it would be a weapon which would aid in the execution of justice, and therefore no one ought to grumble at that. That argument seemed to him (Mr. Chance) to be based on a somewhat curious fallacy. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that the sharper the weapon, independent of the hands that had to wield it, the better it was for the administration of justice. That would be all very well if the people bad confidence in the administration of law in Ireland; but, not having that confidence, it seemed to him to be a curious argument that the sharper the weapon, and the more powerful the means of conviction you put into the hands of Crown lawyers, the more certain it would be that justice would be done. The argument was illogical, and completely at variance with the rest of the arguments advanced from the other side. He thought he could throw a little light upon the real reason why Ireland had been included in this Bill. When this Bill came on for discussion late last Session there was a very vigorous opposition to it from these Benches, and the result was that it did not pass either for Ireland or for England; and he had reason to suppose last year that the punishment which would be inflicted by Her Majesty's Government for their action would be to insist, in spite of any argument adduced in this House, that this Bill should operate in Ireland as well as in England. That was the real or one of the real reasons of the persistence of the Government in forcing this Bill down their throats. The second reason was that, in accordance with the policy which was now fashionable on the Benches opposite, the Government desired to give the Irish Members a snub. He passed from that, however, because it was not worthy of very considerable mention; but the last and gravest reason was the desire of the Government, that men of the type of Cecil Roche and other gentlemen who wielded judicial powers in Ireland, should
    134
    have an opportunity of proving their zeal for the maintenance of law and order by cross-examining and torturing prisoners, by commenting in severe language upon their refusal to criminate themselves, or upon their refusal to subject themselves and their evidence to the strongest observations on the part of Crown lawyers. What would be the benefit to a prisoner in Ireland of any evidence given by him? It was obvious that if the prisoner went into the witness-box his evidence would be divided into two parts—the first part would be the evidence in his own favour, and as to that there would be an argument of undeniable weight and force used against him. The Crown would say, and say with great force and truth, that where a man was on his trial, the result of which might be that he would be imprisoned for 10, 15, or 20 years, or, perhaps, for life, he had the very strongest possible interest in making out the best case he could; and they would say that, under such conditions, the sanctity of an oath could not weigh very much with him; that he had most overpowering reasons for perjuring himself, and therefore anything said in his own favour must be pooh-poohed, and must not be considered by the jury. On the other hand, the most trivial particular in which the prisoner disagreed from his own witnesses would be given enormous significance to discredit them, the Crown officials would say—"This is a man who has the greatest interest in procuring his own acquittal, and he is a man who must know the facts of the case." For these reasons, stated as briefly as he could state them, he certainly strongly protested against this Bill being applied to Ireland, but even though Her Majesty's Government might not be inclined to admit the validity of these reasons, he thought it would be but a very small concession on their part to let this Bill have a fair trial in England before applying it to Ireland. In spite of all prophecies the Bill might not be quite successful, and it was only a reasonable thing that this new medicine should be tried in the country where there was some confidence in the administration of the law and the constitution had strength to bear the experiment oven if unsuccessful, leaving it to be extended hereafter to a country in which

    135
    there was not such confidence, if its operation proved beneficial.
    MR. PARNELL: Mr. Speaker
    THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. Smith)said, he considered the subject had been now sufficiently discussed, and that it must be generally felt that the time had now arrived when he was justified in claiming the right to move that "the Question be now put."
    Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 111: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 50.)
    MR. PARNELL: I beg, Mr. Speaker, to submit to you a question on a point of Order. I submit, Sir, that under the Rule, while you are able and compelled to put the Question regarding the Amendment which is now under discussion, and which you have put without permitting any further discussion on that Question, yet that when the time comes for you to put the Question upon the Original Question—that is, that the Bill be now road a second time—it is within your competency to allow further discussion if you should think fit, upon that Question, and I wish to give you Notice that I shall claim the right, subject to your permission, to discuss the Question when you put the Main Question.
    [No reply.]
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 173; Noes 119: Majority 54.

    AYES.

    Addison, J. E. W.

    Bigwood, J.

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Birkbeck, Sir E.

    Ambrose, W.

    Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Bond, G. H.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

    Baird, J. G. A.

    Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

    Brookfield, A. M.

    Barry, A. H. Smith-

    Bruce, Lord H.

    Bartley, G. C. T.

    Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Bates, Sir E.

    Burghley, Lord

    Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

    Campbell, Sir A.

    Campbell, J. A.

    Beaumont, H. F.

    Carmarthen, Marq. of

    Bective, Earl of

    Charrington, S.

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    Clarke, Sir E. G.

    Bethell, Commander G. R.

    Coghill, D. H.

    Corry, Sir J. P.

    136

    Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

    Hunt, F. S.

    Cross, H. S.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Grossman, Gen. Sir W.

    Jarvis, A. W.

    Darling, C. J.

    Johnston, W.

    Davenport, H. T.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Dawnay, Col. hn. L. P.

    Ker, R. W. B.

    De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

    Kerans, F. H.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    King, H. S.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Knowles, L.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. B.

    Lafone, A.

    Dorington, Sir J. E.

    Lambert, C.

    Duncan, Colonel F.

    Lawrence, W. F.

    Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

    Lees, E.

    Edwards-Moss, T. C.

    Legh, T. W.

    Egerton, hon. A. de T.

    Lennox, Lord W. C. Gordon-

    Elcho, Lord

    Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

    Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

    Elliot, hon. H. F. H.

    Ellis, Sir J. W.

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Ewart, Sir W.

    Long, W. H.

    Eyre, Colonel H.

    Low, M.

    Farquharson, H. R.

    Macartney, W. G. E.

    Fellowes, A. E.

    Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

    Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

    Maclean, F. W.

    Finch, G. H.

    Maclure, J. W.

    Finlay, R. B.

    M'Calmont, Captain J.

    Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

    Madden, D. H.

    Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

    Malcolm, Col. J. W.

    Mallock, R.

    Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

    Maple, J. B.

    Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.

    Forwood, A. B.

    Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

    Fowler, Sir R. N.

    Fraser, General C. C.

    Matthews, rt. hn. H.

    Fulton, J. F.

    Mattinson, M. W.

    Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Mills, hon. C. W.

    Gedge, S.

    Milvain, T.

    Gilliat, J. S.

    Morrison, W.

    Godson, A. F.

    Moss, R.

    Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

    Mount, W. G.

    Mulholland, H. L.

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

    Newark, Viscount

    Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

    Noble, W.

    Granby, Marquess of

    Norris, E. S.

    Gray, C. W.

    Norton, R.

    Grimston, Viscount

    O'Neill, hon. R. T.

    Grotrian, F. B.

    Parker, hon. F.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Parker, C. S.

    Pearce, Sir W.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J.

    Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

    Hamilton, Col. C. E.

    Powell, F. S.

    Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

    Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

    Hanbury, R. W.

    Robertson, J. T. B.

    Hankey, F. A.

    Robinson, B.

    Hastings, G. W.

    Royden, T. B.

    Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

    Russell, Sir G.

    Russell, T. W.

    Heaton, J. H.

    Salt, T.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Saunderson, Col. E. J.

    Hervey, Lord F.

    Selwyn, Capt. C. W.

    Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

    Sidebotham, J. W.

    Hoare, E, B.

    Sidebottom, W.

    Hoare, S.

    Sinclair, W. P.

    Holloway, G.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

    Howard, J.

    Smith, A.

    Hozier, J. H. C.

    Stanley, E. J.

    Hubbard, hon. E.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Hughes, Colonel E.

    Taylor, F.

    Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

    Temple, Sir R.

    Tollemache, H. J.

    137

    Tyler, Sir H. W.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Waring, Colonel T.

    Yerburgh, R. A.

    Watson, J.

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    TELLERS.

    White, J. B.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    NOES.

    Acland, A. H. D.

    Kenny, J. E.

    Allison, R. A.

    Kilbride, D.

    Anderson, C. H.

    Lalor, R.

    Asher, A.

    Lawson, Sir W.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Leahy, J.

    Austin, J.

    Lewis, T. P.

    Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

    Lockwood, F.

    Ballantine, W H. W.

    M'Donald, P.

    Barbour, W. B.

    M'Laren, W. S. B.

    Barry, J.

    Mahony, P.

    Beaumont, W. B.

    Mayne, T.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Morley, right hon. J.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    Morley, A.

    Bright, W. L.

    Mundella, rt. hn. A. J.

    Brown, A. L.

    Murphy, W. M.

    Brunner, J. T.

    Neville, R.

    Burt, T.

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Caldwell, J.

    Nolan, J.

    Cameron, J. M.

    O Brien, J. F. X.

    Campbell, H.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Causton, R. K.

    O'Brien, W.

    Chance, P. A.

    O'Connor, A.

    Clancy, J. J.

    O'Connor, J.

    Clark, Dr. G. B.

    O'Hea, P.

    Coleridge, hon. B.

    O'Kelly, J.

    Condon, T. J.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Conway, M.

    Paulton, J. M.

    Corbel, W. J.

    Pease, A. E.

    Cossham, H.

    Provand, A. D.

    Cox, J. R.

    Pyne, J. D.

    Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

    Quinn, T.

    Crilly, D.

    Redmond, W. H. K.

    Crossley, E.

    Roberts, J. B.

    Deasy, J.

    Roberts, J.

    Dillon, J.

    Rowlands, J.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Rowntree, J.

    Ellis, J.

    Russell, Sir C.

    Ellis, T. E.

    Samuelson, G. B.

    Fenwick, C.

    Sheehan, J. D.

    Finucane, J.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    Firth, J. F. B.

    Stack, J.

    Flower, C.

    Stewart, H.

    Flynn, J. C.

    Sullivan, D.

    Foley, P. J.

    Sutherland, A.

    Fox, Dr. J. F.

    Swinburne, Sir J.

    Fry, T.

    Tanner, C. K.

    Fuller, G. P.

    Thomas, D. A.

    Gilhooly, J.

    Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

    Gill, T. P.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Tuite, J.

    Grey, Sir E.

    Warmington, C. M.

    Haldane, R. B.

    Wayman, T.

    Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

    Will, J. S.

    Williamson, S.

    Harris, M.

    Wilson, H. J.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Winterbotham, A. B.

    Healy, M.

    Woodhead, J.

    Healy, T. M.

    Wright, C.

    Hingley, B.

    Hunter, W. A.

    TELLERS.

    Joicey, J.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Kennedy, E. J.

    Carew, J. L.

    Kenny, C. S.

    Main Question, "That the Bill be read the third time," put.
    MR. PARNELL: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words in view of the decision which the House has just come to—that the Bill shall apply to Ireland—upon the general application of the measure, but more especially upon its application to Ireland, and in doing so I shall endeavour to keep myself strictly within the Order of the Rules of the House and to refrain from discussing even incidentally any matter which would be more properly discussed upon the Amendment which the House has just decided upon adversely to our views and to our wishes. But perhaps, Sir, you will allow me to say generally that I greatly regret that I did not have an opportunity of speaking upon that Amendment. I was a Member of the Grand Committee in 1884, sat upon a measure of a similar character to this. It is a question that I have always taken a great deal of interest in, and there are several special reasons on account of which I think I might have been afforded an opportunity of speaking my views upon the immediate question which was then under discussion of the application of this measure to Ireland. However, Sir, that is a matter which has been decided upon by the House. It is past and gone, and I will only say regarding it, that I trust that when the Bill gets into Committee the Government may see fit to re-consider their decision, which may, perhaps, have been rather hastily arrived at to-night without full consideration of all the various aspects of the question, and that they may be led, as the result of the reconsideration, to treat the Bill as a purely English measure, and as one in which we consequently need not take that interest which we are so unfortunately compelled to take in many measures which are brought forward by the Government, and proposed to be extended to Ireland. I had hoped and was most desirous that the pledge the Government gave at the commencement of this Session, that this was to be a British Session, should be kept, and I think it is most unfortunate that, except in a case of absolute and urgent necessity, such as the measure brought forward yesterday, and which, if it were agreed to, we should not have trespassed on the Government for any facilities whatever in getting through its Committee stage. I have been most anxious that this Session should be a Session of

    139
    British legislation, and had the Government carried out the pledge to which I have referred, we should have been able to show we can stand by and exhibit the height of fair play to the two English Parties when discussing questions of legislation only affecting their own country. But the decision which the House has come to puts us in this position—The measure, which we should otherwise have been only too glad to see passed through the House without our opposition, we shall be compelled to oppose on every stage, simply from the point of view of Ireland. I regret this, as I have said, very much. As regards the general question, and entirely apart from the merits of the measure itself, there are special features in reference to the application of this Bill to Ireland—namely, that it will, in our opinion, injuriously affect our country—which would make it absolutely necessary for us to oppose the measure as a whole. I do not disapprove of it, and, therefore, I regret that necessity. It may be, and undoubtedly is, a very good and salutary measure for Great Britain, and we should have been most happy to have seen it passed through its different stages with the general consent of all sections and all Parties in this House; but you put us in this position, by compelling us to take an interest in it from an Irish point of view; you put us in the position of obliging us to subordinate your interest to our interest with regard to it, and, naturally, as Irishmen, we must feel a greater interest in the measure, because it is an Irish measure, than we should feel in it if it were English. I think I have said enough to show that we have some ground of complaint; first of all, because I was shut up from expressing my opinion fully upon the proper stage of the measure, and, secondly, on account of what I think has been undoubtedly the most precipitate conduct of the Government in the matter. I trust that without my saying anything more upon the subject at the present moment—because I shall have another opportunity of saying what I have to say with regard to the subject on the Motion for going into Committee upon the Bill—that the Government will see the reasonableness of the position which we have taken up, and that they will feel that it is desirable and will allow us to treat
    140
    the measure as a purely British measure.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I think, from the point of view of progress of the Bill, that it is to be regretted that, owing to the course which the Government have thought fit to take in this matter, we have not been allowed to hear the views of the hon. Member for the City of Cork upon the issue before us; and that, consequently, there is danger that the progress of a measure, upon the principles of which we are all agreed, may be considerably impeded. I think that it will be a very deplorable circumstance if we do not have an opportunity of hearing the views of so leading a politician as the hon. Member for the City of Cork on the question. I must say that I am also afraid that the discussion of the Bill in Committee will be much impeded by the fact that the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) was not able, owing to the Forms of the House, to alter his Amendment in conformity with the views I ventured to lay before the House. I think that the course which the Government have taken will by no means expedite the progress of the Bill. I regret and deplore that fact, as I think that the measure is one that should be passed with all possible expedition. I repeat that by the course which the Government have taken, they have done that which will most certainly delay the passing of the measure.
    MR. DILLON: I rise only for the purpose of entreating the Government to put the Committee stage of the measure off until a reasonable period after the Easter holidays.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I can only say that I regret equally with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. John Morley), that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) did not avail himself of the ample opportunity he had of expressing to the House his views with regard to this measure. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member did not, to my knowledge, appear in his place until a very late period of the debate, which has now gone on for five hours. I am satisfied that, had it been necessary, any hon. Member on this side of the House would have willingly yielded to the hon. Member had he shown a desire to address the House during those five

    141
    hours. In response to the appeal of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), I may say that the Government are perfectly willing to give ample time for the consideration of the measure before taking the Committee stage. They, therefore, do not propose to take that stage until Tuesday fortnight, April 12, at a Morning Sitting.
    MR. DILLON: That does not meet our views at all, and I cannot consent to the Committee stage of the Bill being taken so soon.
    The House divided:—Ayes 231; Noes 92: Majority 139.—(Div. List, No. 52.)
    Bill read a second time, and committed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon 12th April, resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Mr. W. Smith.)
    MR. DILLONsaid, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to again set down the Committee stage for the 3rd May. The Government had, in spite of the earnest appeals and protests of Irish Members, made of that Bill an Irish question; and he felt bound to say, and believed many Members would agree with him, that seeing the Bill had been made one of vital interest for Ireland, some consideration should be show, for the convenience of Irish Members. They were dragged some 400 or 500 miles from home and detained half the year in Parliament, and when permitted to return for a short Recess on Tuesday next the Government deliberately proposed that after a brief interval Irish Members should be dragged back again to London by the necessity of being in their places to attend to this Bill which, in spite of all that might be said to the contrary, was a question in which the Irish people took a vital interest. Of necessity, then, Irish Representatives must attend the discussion; and so the Government compelled them to return from Ireland not allowing a reasonable Recess. So far as he could remember, at least for a very long time, it had been an uniform practice to consult, in some measure, the convenience of Irish Members in regard to the arrangement of Irish Business, whether Bills or Estimates, or whatever Business it might be in which they were interested. Now, when the right hon. Gentleman was asked to meet the views of
    142
    Irish Members in this particular, he met the appeal by deliberately setting down the Bill for the first day of the reassembling of Parliament after the Easter Recess.
    Ma. W. H. SMITHsaid, that was not so; Thursday the 12th, was three weeks hence.
    Ma. DILLONsaid, he was under the impression that Thursday fortnight was mentioned. However, be that as it might—[Laughter]—it was not such an absurd proposal as he supposed it to be, but at the same time let hon. Members remember that the proposal was to hurry Irish Members back to London and the proposal was made in the most gratuitously offensive way, the convenience of those Members being in no way consulted. It was really and truly very great evidence of want of consideration and want of courtesy on the part of the Government towards Members who sincerely desired to let the Bill pass, and have been prepared to do so. If the Government had met Irish Members in a reasonable spirit, the second reading might have been passed hours ago, and the Committee appointed for any day desired. But they must needs make of it an Irish question, in spite of all protest, and it had become a burning Irish Question to which Irish Members must attend, for their constituents required that duty of them. He thought it a reasonable proposal to fix the date as May 3rd, and made that Motion.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out "12th April," and insert, "3rd May,"—(Mr. Dillon,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That '12th April' stand part of the Question."
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, there was one point in respect to April 12th which had considerable interest for the House generally. For that day the second reading of the Local Government Bill had been set down. Were they to understand that the Government intended to postpone the Local Government? [Mr. W. H. Smith: No.] Then was the House to understand that this very important Bill was to come on at a quarter to 12, or some such hour? What was the real meaning of this Government?
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not been very long in the House, but he had been a Mem-

    143
    ber long enough to be very well aware that the Government or any Member in fixing a day for the further consideration of a Bill, fixed a day before which that Bill could not be taken. The day named for this Bill (April 12) would be just one week after the re-assembling of the House. Parliament assembled on the 5th, and he thought he would be fairly meeting the views of hon. Members from Ireland who were usually in their places within four or five days of Business being resumed. It was utterly impossible for any Government to insure that among the first Business no measure should be proceeded with that had not more or less interest for Irish Members. It was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Local Government Bill on the 12th, and in all probability the Standing Committee on Law Bills would by then be set up, and it was within the power of the Government to refer this Bill to that Law Committee; but the Government must reserve to themselves the right, if they thought fit, to refer this Bill to the Law Committee on or after the 12th.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not be exposed to the same reproach as his right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for he had the misfortune to enter the House of Commons at the same time as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman would have made his views a little more clear if, when he was asked about the Bill, he had stated that he did not mean it to come on on the 12th of April. But the understanding now was that the Bill should not come on on that day. ["No!"] Then let the understanding he made clear. The right lion. Gentleman seemed not only to have misled Members on that side, but even some who sat behind him. Was the Bill to come on on the 12th of April? Was it to come on on the same day with the Local Government Bill? Surely the hon. Gentleman who said "No" must have been in the House a very short time indeed. But he thought they all understood the Bill would not be taken OR the 12th of April, but that it might come on after then. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill was to be referred to the Law Committee, which was not yet set up; therefore, he thought his hon. Friend need not trouble
    144
    himself by the fear that the Bill was likely to come on on the 12th of April, or for a good many days after that.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not been very long Leader of the House, but he had been long enough in the position to have the opportunity of showing some consideration and courtesy towards an important minority in the House. But from the period of his appointment to his elevated position to the present hour that section of the House had experienced from him nothing but discourtesy. They had never received from him at any time during his tenure of Office that consideration that had usually been extended to that minority by every other Leader of the House, Conservative or Liberal. It had always been usual to show some consideration to Members coming from distant parts of the Kingdom from constituencies separated by hundreds of miles from London. Members who had, or most of them had, quite enough to attend to in their own country if they were only allowed to attend to it. They could have pardoned the right hon. Gentleman for his action when he said it was his "painful" duty to move the Closure; but there was no duty incumbent upon him to fix for the next stage of this Bill a day that must be inconvenient to the opponents of the measure. To-night the right hon. Gentleman had had a good lesson on the method of managing the Business of the House. From the right hon. and learned Member for Bury, who was not by any means an enemy of the Government, he had received disinterested advice to treat Irish Members with some consideration. For the first time the House was made aware of the intention of the Government to refer this Bill to a Grand Committee, which, in his opinion, would add still further to the unpleasantness connected with the proceedings on the Bill. If that was the intention, then the composition of the Grand Committee became an important question for Irish Members. They were entitled to know who were the Members of the Committee, and must be present when the composition was discussed. Was it reasonable to bring Irish Members over from Ireland on the 12th, on what was practically a wild goose chase, and when there was no probability of the Bill being discussed. Usually, Irish

    145
    Members were thought to take a malignant interest in the Business of the House; but now they asked to be excused from attending for some time, and when they wished to take a respite, they were to be needlessly brought over either to discuss the Bill or the composition of the Committee to which it was to be relegated. The Government might have saved the whole evening from 6 o'clock if they had struck Ireland out of the Bill, and a quarter of an hour ago might have saved this further debate, if they had allowed a reasonable interval for the next stage, having regard to the position of Members who represented distant portions of Her Majesty's Dominions. Was it likely that their loyalty towards the British Parliament would be increased by losing met in such a spirit as this? If they were obliged to attend at Westminster some consideration should be shown them. Therefore, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seemed about to rise, would signify his sense of the case with which the Conversion scheme was allowed to pass—in which certainly Irish Members might have taken considerable interest—by showing some consideration to Irish Members, and reciprocating the courtesy shown him, and allow a longer interval before proceeding with the Bill.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he had risen not for the purpose the hon. and learned Member suggested, but to enter his most emphatic protest which would, he believed, be endorsed by all hon. Members on that side, and many Members on the other side, against the charge of discourtesy made against his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith). He did not think such a charge, coming from such a quarter, ought to be passed over in silence. Frequently assailed by vituperation and personal observations, of which he felt sure the great majority of Members opposite would be ashamed, his right hon. Friend had invariably observed the most courteous bearing towards all sections of the House. In his duty of arranging the Business of the House his right hon. Friend had conscientiously endeavoured to meet the wishes of all sections and to preserve moderation in debate, and it was really a libel upon his right hon. Friend to say he treated any Member with discourtesy. The hon. and learned Member for North
    146
    Longford spoke of the manner in which the Conversion scheme was received—of the consideration shown to that measure. He (Mr. Goschen) was grateful to hon. Members of all sections for that consideration; he acknowledged it fully, he had acknowledged it that afternoon, and he was glad to do so again. With regard to this particular question, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) seemed to ignore the constant custom of Governments and of private Members to put down Bills for a certain day, to be considered on that day, if circumstances were favourable, but more frequently they were sot down so that when the day came they might be more definitely fixed for consideration. It was with that view, and certainly not to cause inconvenience to any Member, that it was proposed to set down Committee on this Bill for April 12th. It was obviously almost impossible that the Bill could be discussed on that day, but it was possible that a proposal might be made on that day to refer it to the Grand Committee on Law. The Government must reserve, in regard to this, the same right they had in regard to other Bills; but he repeated it was highly improbable and almost impossible to take the discussion on April 12th.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, surely the sensible course, seeing that it was highly improbable, and almost impossible, that the Bill could be taken on the 12th, was to accede to the very reasonable request of his hon. Friend, and not compel Irish Members to take a long journey—some of them of 600 miles—on the bare possibility of the Bill being taken. The return journey of some of his Colleagues covered 1,200 miles. He would not enter into a discussion of the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman, except to say that on a recent occasion, when he exhibited not his courtesy, but his back to Irish Members in moving the Closure, they were not able to distinguish that feature in the view presented. To his (Mr. Parnell's) knowledge, the right hon. Gentleman had not shown any courtesy or consideration to Irish Members during the Session—not to speak of other Sessions—which, he submitted, might have bean expected under the circumstances. The greatest possible consideration ought to have been shown by the right hon. Gentleman towards Irish Members, who had, on every

    147
    possible occasion, when the interests of their country allowed them to do so, effaced themselves in order to expedite Government Business. The return for that made by the right hon. Gentleman was to move the Closure whenever an Irish Member rose to speak. He would not say that was want of courtesy, since the phrase was objected to; but he would say it displayed a want of consideration and an absence of that judicious character that best became a Leader of the House, and the presence of which ensured that rapid transaction of Business the Tory Party professed to desire. Of all Leaders of the House he had known, the right hon. Gentleman was most like that publican who was his own best customer—he was the champion Obstructionist of his own business. The House had for the last hour been discussing a matter which never ought to have been discussed, if the right hon. Gentleman had possessed a particle of tact. He had originated by his conduct first one discussion, then another, on points entirely unnecessary; and so far had he been from saving time, that he had now lost the chance of bringing forward another Government measure, to which it was presumed he attached some value, and which he might have proceeded with had he shown some consideration for the views of Irish Members. It was to be hoped that at the eleventh hour the House might be spared a prolongation of this discussion, and as it was highly improbable, and almost impossible, that the Bill could come on on the 12th April, the Government would accede to the Motion of his hon. Friend, and put it down for some day when it would be highly probable and most possible that it would be brought on.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 198; Noes 130: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 53.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee upon Thursday 12th April.

  MORTMAIN AND CHARITABLE USE BILL [Lords].— [BILL 174.]
  (Mr. Attorney General.)
  MORTMAIN AND CHARITABLE USE BILL [Lords].— [BILL 174.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he had no desire to object to the Bill, but he would ask that it might be referred to the Grand Committee on Law. It was called a consolidation Bill, and no doubt it was intended to be so. But it was not; it was a translation of an old law into a new law. The Bill also re-enacted some objectionable provisions, and in Committee it would be proposed to introduce Amendments with respect to those provisions; but he would not pursue his remarks at any length, if it was understood the Bill would be referred to the Law Committee.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, if the right hon. Gentleman would take time and carefully look through the Bill, he would find that, with some variation in language, every section was taken from the old Acts. Still, if it was the desire of the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill should go before the Grand Committee, he would not oppose it.
    Motion agreed to.

  WESTMINSTER ABBEY BILL.— [BILL 165.]
  (Mr. William Henry Smith Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Jackson.)
  WESTMINSTER ABBEY BILL.— [BILL 165.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. Smith)said, he hoped the House would allow this Bill to be read a second time. It did not inflict any charge upon the taxpayers, but was intended to make provision out of ecclesiastical funds alone, as occasion required, for the restoration and repair of the Abbey. The dilapidations of the Abbey were serious and considerable, and he trusted the House would agree to the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he hoped that the Bill would not be taken at such a time (12 o'clock). He did not know that he objected to it altogether, but there were certain provisions in it that required certain explanation-what

    149
    amount they were called upon to vote—
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, there was no amount to vote at all.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, at all events, he did not think the Bill should be passed hurriedly, and he moved the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Dillwyn,)—put and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (ARREARS OF RENT) BILL.— [BILL 147.]
  (Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Lea, Mr. Finlay, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Sinclair.)
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (ARREARS OF RENT) BILL.— [BILL 147.]

    SECOND READING.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, after the statements made by the First Lord of the Treasury to-night in connection with the debate of the previous day, he did not feel himself justified as a private Member in keeping his Bill any longer on the Paper. But in moving that the Order for the second reading be discharged, he wished to be allowed to say that he would not allow that any responsibility rested upon himself and his friends; the responsibility must rest on the shoulders of the responsible Government of the country. He moved that the Order be discharged.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the order for the Second. Reading of the Bill be read and discharged."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Order discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    CUSTOMS, ISLE OF MAN.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in lieu of the duties of Customs now charged on rum and on British and Irish spirits imported into the Isle of Alan, there shall be charged the duties following (that is to say):—

    Rum, including shrub, of the British

    s.

    d.

    Possessions, the gallon

    8

    6

    British and Irish spirits, not otherwise exempted from the payment of duty, the gallon

    8

    6

    Objection taken; and, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    SECONDARY EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Preston Bruce, Bill to organize and promote Secondary Education in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Preston Bruce, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Craig Sellar, Mr. Haldane, and Mr. Esslemont.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 187.]

    LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (REPORTS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Lockwood, Bill to amend the Law as to Reports of Proceedings in Courts of Law, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lockwood, Mr. Robert Reid, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Samuel Smith, and Mr. Asquith.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 188]

    ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1878, AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. J. B. Balfour, Bill to amend "The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878," ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. Craig Sellar, and Sir Archibald Campbell.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 189.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock,

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 1) *; National Debt (Conversion) * (49).
Second Reading—Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances) (43).
Third Reading—Law of Distress Amendment (44), and passed.

LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 44.)
(The Lord Herschell.)
LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 44.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, the intention of the Bill was to put the landlord in the same position as other creditors. But the effect of this would be to take away from the tenant
  2
  the credit on which, at present, he could rely. The result would be that the tenant would either have to pay in advance or would have his rent raised. He did not intend to oppose the Bill; but he wished to call attention to the direction in which legislation was now going.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that he would not have introduced the Bill unless he had received assurances of its usefulness from those who were better able to judge of the matter than himself, and those who had a practical acquaintance with the question had assured him that it was likely to be advantageous, since the present system combined the maximum of hardship to the tenant with the minimum of advantage to the land-lord, because when the tools of a skilled workman were sold they generally fetched very little, while the workman was deprived of his means of working.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES) BILL.—(No. 43.)
(The Earl of Onslow.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES) BILL.—(No. 43.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of ONSLOW)in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, observed that the subject of the better preservation of life at sea was one which had already engaged the attention of Parliament, and a Royal Commission had been appointed to inquire into the whole subject. That Commission had dealt with the subject in a far more comprehensive manner than he now proposed to do in the present Bill. A Bill had also been introduced last year in "another place" which had been referred to a Select Committee. That Bill bad dealt exclusively with the provision of boats and life-saving apparatus, and it was upon the Report of that Committee that the provisions of the present Bill were mainly founded. The subject had also aroused the attention of some of our Colonies, and representations had been made by the Governments of Tasmania, Queensland, and Victoria, to the effect that legislation should be initiated by the Imperial Parliament, in consequence of which the question had been discussed at the Colonial Conference. At the present time ships were divided into two classes; the first being "passenger ships"—namely, those only which carried emigrants, and other ships, which meant all ships, whether they carried passengers or cargo, provided they did not carry emigrants. The Passengers Act, 1855, provided that every passenger ship should carry a number of boats in proportion to her tonnage. A ship of under 200 tons was to carry two boats, under 400 three boats, under 600 four boats, under 1,000 five boats, and under 1,500 tons six boats; while a ship of over 1,500 tons, whatever might be her size, was only obliged to carry seven boats, no matter what amount of passengers she carried. It was also necessary to carry four lifebuoys only. Whether a ship carried passengers or not, under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, she was obliged to carry the necessary complement of boats according to the scale
  4
  if she cleared from any port in the United Kingdom; if she did not, there was no compulsion to carry any life-saving apparatus whatever. Owing to the fact that that Act made demands far in excess of the actual requirements of the case, it had become practically a dead letter. By law a vessel could not be obliged to carry more than seven life-boats. In 1873 power had been given to the Board of Trade to relieve shipowners who did not carry more than 12 passengers by diminishing the number of boats they were obliged to carry. It was not a general complaint that the large well-found steamers were insufficiently supplied with life-saving apparatus. If they took the Cunard steamers—for instance, the Etruria—the captain of that ship gave evidence that she carried, on the average, 1,000 persons; that she had 14 large boats capable of carrying 800, with 1,207 life-belts, one in each state room for every passenger, carried overhead in racks. Besides this there were bulkhead doors which were closed every day all through the ship by the chief engineer in his department and by the chief officer in the sailing department. All boats were lowered every Friday in Liverpool before they sailed; the boats were sent away from the ship manned; if there was any wind they sailed; if not, they were pulled; the boats were all ready for sea use, and all the 12 or 14 boats could be lowered into the water in the space of two minutes, and they were also provisioned with water. In the City of New York, lately launched, additional life-saving apparatus was provided in the shape of a false bottom, so that if one bottom was stove in the ship would still have the false one to keep the water out. Similar precautions in regard to boats were taken on board the steamers running between Calais and Dover, and Folkestone and Boulogne. But in short voyage ships, taking the average of 50 ships leaving the Port of Liverpool, the legal requirement of boat accommodation was found to be 7·6 per cent of the passengers carried; but the actual percentage was 10·6, and in those boats which crossed the Irish Channel the legal requirement was 13·1 and the actual percentage 16·1. There were life jackets for the crew only. But life-saving apparatus for only 10 or 16 per cent was very inadequate. These requirements

  5
  were based upon the tonnage of a ship and not on the number of passengers, and the tonnage of ships was very different from what it used to be owing to the deductions now made from the gross tonnage. He knew of a case where the tonnage from 300 gross had by various reductions been reduced to 6 not, and therefore the life-saving apparatus which the ship would be required to carry would be almost nil. It was also necessary to see that the apparatus was in a state of efficiency. Great complaints had been made on the part of seamen going to sea in cargo ships, not of the amount of boat accommodation provided, but on account of the state of that accommodation. There had been a case not long ago of a man falling overboard and being afloat for 25 minutes; they had been three-quarters of an hour before they got a boat over the side for the want of proper davits. The evidence was to the effect that the boat was on the after-house, turned upside down. They had to turn the boat over; and, finally, a sea had lifted her off the tackles and she had broken in two. At present the Surveyors of the Board of Trade were not empowered to go on board to inspect the life-saving apparatus; they could only inspect crew spaces, lights, and fog signals, unless they were Inspectors also, which they rarely were. Since 1875 the Board of Trade had only obtained four convictions against owners for want of proper boat accommodation and want of efficient life-saving appliances. It might be said that the most efficient mode of saving life at sea was to keep the vessel afloat by means of bulkheads; but, in dealing with these matters, we must not attempt to overweight the Bill, competition with foreign shipping was so keen. The value of boats for saving life was very great, notwithstanding the present inadequate provision. In the period of nine years between 1876 and 1885, of 135,273 lives which had been exposed to loss by wreck, 60,231 were actually saved by the ships' own boats, that was nearly two-thirds of the 109,745 saved, and nearly half of the whole lives that needed saving. We had lost on or near the coast 6,629 lives in the same period. We had fortunately saved 34,602 lives in the nine years, but by far the greatest proportion—namely, 14,807, had been saved by the ships'
  6
  own boats. The Bill would provide for a new departure in this legislation. The Government thought that those who were primarily interested had already endeavoured in some measure to do their duty. On the lines crossing the Atlantic and the Channel adequate provision far exceeding what was required by law had been made, and he thought we should be meeting the requirements of all concerned if we invited the owners and others interested to advise as to how this life-saving apparatus might be provided. First of all, there were the shipowners, then there were the shipbuilders, then the practical navigators, then the able seamen, and, lastly, the underwriters at Lloyd's. The Bill proposed that a Committee, composed of three of each of these classes, should be formed ad hoc for the purpose of classifying the different kinds of vessels, and then of making rules with regard to the life-saving apparatus to be carried by each. These rules would be subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, and would be laid upon the Table of that and the other House of Parliament, so that Parliament would have an opportunity of judging whether they would be efficient or not. As to inspection, any Surveyor or other person appointed by the Board of Trade might give notice to an owner that a ship should not clear if there was any deficiency. He did not claim that the result of this measure would be absolute immunity as regarded loss of life at sea; but he trusted that it would reduce the risks, and provide some remedy for a state of the law which was at present extremely anomalous and not suited to the requirements of the times. The boat scales in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and Passengers Act, 1855, were framed upwards of 30 years ago to meet a different state of things than now existed. At that time nearly the whole of the passenger traffic was carried on by wooden sailing ships of about 1,200 to 1,509 tons burden. The boat scales were framed on the basis of the ship's registered tonnage, which, in those days of sailing ships, gave a very good idea of the vessel's size and of her capabilities for stowing boats, &c.; but now the sailing ships had entirely given place to iron or steel steamships of two or three times their size. Every merchant seaman on the North-East Coast was in favour of men

  7
  being provided with life-bolts. He ventured to hope that the rules to be made by this Committee would be welcomed and cheerfully observed by all the interests concerned, and that, if these expectations were fulfilled, it might be possible to extend still further the principle of inviting all the interests affected by other such matters to unite in deciding what restrictions should be laid upon them for their common good. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD COTTESLOEsaid, he heartily supported the principle of the Bill, which he earnestly hoped might conduce to the saving of life at sea. He would also suggest that, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee, something should be done to require the use of oil in cases of storm and shipwreck.
  THE EARL or RAVENSWORTHsaid, that the object of the Bill was one which every man would approve, and he entirely agreed with the noble Lord who had moved the second reading that the present law was most unsatisfactory. It was more—it was extremely anomalous, and in some of its provisions almost absurd. But he wished to say that there was no class of men in this country who were more anxious to save life than the shipowners, and he was not in the least ashamed to tell their Lordships that the conviction had been forced upon his mind that, of all the traders of this country, the most capable of conducting their business were the shipowners. He regarded, therefore, with some degree of suspicion, or at least of jealousy, all those attempts to teach men a business which they knew much better than the Legislature. By Clause 2 the President of the Board of Trade, for the time being, was authorized to appoint a Consultative Committee to assist him in this particular matter. There were to be three representatives of each class concerned on that council, the selection of whom was to be left absolutely in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade. Now this council ought to consist of the most competent men in the country; but the most competent men had so much to do at home that they would be prevented from coming up to London, and waiting on the President of the Board of Trade
  8
  to teach him his business. He was much afraid that the persons who would be left to select from would be gentlemen who had nothing else to do, and who would be very glad of a run to London, at the public expense, if they had the opportunity. He thought that question would require considerable threshing out on the next stage of the Bill. He would further point out that what the Bill required to be done was practically done now by all the best shipowners in the country. Interference with a great industry should be confined to a minimum, and only to such matters as were absolutely necessary to protect life. The next point he wished to refer to was Clause 5, which provided for the inspection of ships for the purpose of enforcing the rules made by the Bill. That inspection was to be undertaken by a Surveyor appointed under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, or any such other person as the President of the Board of Trade might appoint. Those words seemed to him very much too wide, and ought to be altered by adding some such words as "properly qualified." He had ventured to make these few remarks preparatory to the next stage of the Bill, because he thought it was only fair to point out defects in the Bill on the second reading, so that the Government might have an opportunity of considering them before the Committee stage was reached.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Earl who had introduced the Bill that the present state of the law was most anomalous. It was most important not to take the responsibility away from the shipowners, and that whore ships were not well found there should be some regulations which would show what was desirable for saving life at sea. He agreed with the noble Earl who spoke last that the Consultative Committee should be composed of thoroughly practical men, but he could not but believe that the President of the Board of Trade would do his best to attain that object. It was shown in a discussion that place in that House some years ago that throwing oil on the water immediately around a ship had a very beneficial effect. He thought that if to every lifebuoy a bag of oil was attached much good might be done. When the buoy was thrown into the water the oil would trickle out, and

  9
  there could be no doubt that that would smooth the water for some distance round the buoy. He thought that was a point worth consideration by the Board of Trade. He was extremely glad the Government had taken up this matter, and he sincerely hoped the Bill would be passed almost in its present shape.
  LORD STANLEY or PRESTONsaid, that as he had something to do with the earlier stages of the Bill he should like to say a word in support of it. He thought his noble Friend who had introduced the Bill with such a clear and able statement must be satisfied with the reception it had met with at the hands of their Lordships. No doubt, the Bill dealt with two very important questions. In the first place, it revised the boat scale; and, in the next place, it contained a provision by which the Board of Trade would be brought in future more directly in touch with some of the commercial interests. It had been said that the Board of Trade had been indifferent to the interests with which it had to deal; but he did not think that was a just accusation. No one who had not been at the Board of Trade could understand the difficulties which surrounded the Office of President, and the vast number of subjects with which he was called upon to deal. The subjects brought under the President's consideration ranged from lighthouses to bankruptcy, and from sea vessels to salmon fishing. It was, therefore, impossible that any man who undertook that Office could have a full knowledge of everything with which he had to deal. The noble Earl (the Earl of Ravensworth) appeared to think that the most competent men of their respective class would not be secured to act on the Consultative Committee. He could not agree with the noble Earl in this view. During his short experience of the Board of Trade he had found gentlemen, at great sacrifice of their valuable time, and often at much inconvenience to their own business, ready on all occasions to come forward freely and frankly to give the Department the benefit of their advice, and he desired to take this opportunity of acknowledging the debt of gratitude under which he lay to those gentlemen. He could well understand the feeling of shipowners towards the Board of Trade, for they certainly had
  10
  sometimes had a rough time of it. With regard to the method of constituting this Consultative Committee, he thought the mode proposed in the Bill—namely, that of the selection of three names out of nine names submitted by each of the respective bodies—was the best that could be devised. The Bill followed as closely as possible the recommendations of the Committee which sat last year to inquire into the subject, with Lord Charles Beresford as Chairman. The proposal in the Bill for constituting the Consultative Committee was the most practical form of giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee. The noble Earl seemed to make it a point of objection to this Bill that it merely provided for that which all good shipowners already made it a practice to do; but this was an argument in favour of the Bill—namely, that it would merely compel careless shipowners to take the precautions which good shipowners took already. Another excellent point of the Bill was that it aimed at securing its object by prevention rather than by penalty. In proceedings against a shipowner the jury were only too ready to give him the benefit of the doubt, and proceedings after a casualty had occurred were consequently found not to be effective. He hoped that this experiment of appointing a Consultative Committee to assist the Board of Trade would be followed in regard to other matters, but to appoint a general Consultative Council to assist the Board of Trade in regard to all its operations would be quite illusory, for men of great experience on some matters might be asked to express an opinion on others of which they had no especial knowledge. The appointment of Consultative Committees ad hoc for the purpose of dealing with the details of particular measures might, however, be very desirable and of great practical utility. Nothing would do more to break down that feeling of antagonism which in certain quarters unfortunately and unjustly existed against the Board of Trade. He was sure his noble Friend in charge of the Bill would give a full and fair consideration to any Amendment which might be brought forward with regard to the details of the Bill, and he believed that the Bill, when passed into law, would prove a most useful measure.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he welcomed the Bill most cordially, for it promised to be very useful and valuable. The most important provision in it was that contained in the 2nd clause, which, for the first time, established a Consultative Committee to assist the Board of Trade. There was much to be said in favour of such a Committee, but there was the danger attached to this proposal that it might diminish the responsibility of the Minister at the head of the Department. The matter required to be carefully watched. It would probably be a good plan if a Committee ad hoc were appointed whose views the Minister could consult, and after consulting whom he might form his own opinion, but the full responsibility of that opinion ought to rest upon him. He desired also to point out that in the case of the rules to be drawn up, and which were to be laid on the Table 40 days before they came into operation, it ought to be provided that the 40 days should only commence to run from the time that they were in print and circulated. He had known cases in which rules were laid on the Table in dummy, and the printed rules were only circulated 30 days after. This made the control of the House almost illusory.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that the suggestions made by the noble Earl who had just sat down and by other noble Lords who had spoken would be very carefully considered. In answer to the suggestion that the proposed Committee would weaken the authority and responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade, he would point out that then, as at the present time, he would make the rules, and would be responsible to Parliament for them.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

AGRICULTURAL AND DAIRY SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NORTON, in rising to ask the Lord President, Whether the Government contemplate taking any steps this Session on the Report of the Departmental Commission on Agricultural and Dairy Schools? said, that the proposal in the Report lacked definition and limit. It was, however, large enough in its outline, although it was called only a commencement. The proposal
  12
  was that there should be a Central Normal School of Agriculture, to be provided and maintained by the State; that existing endowed schools for the middle class should be utilized for teaching practical farming; that agricultural schools originated by local effort should be stimulated and assisted by Government aid for labourers, tenant farmers, and ethers; that district schools in selected districts, of various kinds, five in England and two in Scotland, should be at once set up under the control of the Central Department, and in the management of district committees; that gardens, allotments, and farms should be connected with rural elementary schools for the study of the principles of agriculture, scholarships of £50 a-year each being given to boys and girls who should pass the Sixth Standard in them; that district dairy schools should be established, and endowed with £500 a-year each, besides special grants for buildings and apparatus; that an annual grant of £3,000 should be put at the disposal of the Agricultural Department for original agricultural research; that diplomas from the Central School should be given for the highest qualification, which in agricultural studies was to include forestry, gardening, fruit-growing, poultry, and bee-keeping, besides all ordinary farm work; and in dairy studies was to include the rearing and feeding of stock, and making cheese. Such was the outline for commencement, and for the purpose it was not too large. But the question was whether the State could do all this best. South Kensington did not seem to him to be the true fountain of practical agricultural skill. Much was being done at the present time which State undertaking would supersede. The school in Cumberland was acknowledged to be a success, although the result of private enterprize. Then there was Cirencester, which was said to be too expensive for small farmers, but the scholarships and exhibitions of £100 a-year which this Report proposed would fully open it to their use. Evening classes were also being established for this purpose in country districts. Those actually engaged and interested in the advance of technical knowledge were everywhere making better provision for special apprenticeship than the doctrinaires of Government Departments could possibly make by State schools

  13
  within definite programmes. At most, the State ought to provide central training for teachers, and exhibitions to aid poor talent. There was already on the Estimates a proposal to give £5,000 to begin the work recommended by the Commission, and a promise had been made of a Bill for a Minister of Agriculture. A Department of Agriculture under the Council Office existed in Parliament Street, and in connection with the Local Government Bill more shadowy forms of coming aid appeared. Some clearer indication should be given of what was intended before steps were taken which would make mistake irremediable.
  EARL SPENCERasked, when the Government proposed to lay on the Table the Evidence on which the Report of the Departmental Commission was founded? It seemed to him important that they should have the Evidence before they considered the recommendations made in the Report, as there were many points that required to be elucidated by the Evidence.
  LORD VERNONsaid, he was glad of an opportunity to express the gratitude that a considerable section of the agricultural community felt for the patience and consideration Her Majesty's Government had evinced in dealing with all matters relating to the industry in which they were interested. Commissions had been appointed to inquire into every subject that had been suggested as a possible remedy for the existing depression, which, although the agriculturist had exercised his prerogative of grumbling at, was, as the noble Marquess told them on Monday, not unique to this country, or confined to this one branch of industry, most departments of trade having suffered in a like ratio. The subject of State-aided agricultural education had been an almost unknown thing in this country up to the present time. The Commission of which Sir Richard Paget was the Chairman recommended that dairy schools should be assisted by funds to carry on their operations, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer very wisely remarked that he must be convinced of the utility of such schools before he assented to grants being given them. By that, presumably, he meant their utility from a national point of view. In order to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Commission quoted as a re-
  14
  markable instance of what education hail done for Denmark, her imports of butter to this country having increased from 80,589 cwt. in 1867 to 210,322 cwt. in 1877, and to 487,603 cwt. in 1887. But this increase might be accounted for by studying the prices realized, which were as follows:—104 s. per cwt. in 1867, 128 s. in 1877, and 109 s. in 1887. No doubt that 104 s. in 1867 paid the Danish farmer. When, therefore, the price rose to 128 s. in 1877, it showed an undue margin of profit, and stimulated him to further efforts, and the production had increased in proportion. But the question was if there were many farmers who would be satisfied with such a price for their butter on the average of 12 months, except in the most primitive districts, and if the dairy produce made in England was of an inferior character to that imported from Denmark or elsewhere—if this were proved, then, indeed, we had reason to inquire what could be done to raise the standard of home-made goods; but even in that case it rested with the landowners to improve the produce of their estates. If we were living under a system of peasant proprietors—or even as in Denmark, where the soil was greatly subdivided owing partly to the state of the law, which interdicted the union of small farms into large estates, but encouraged in various ways the parcelling out of landed property, and left the tenant entire control of his land so long as the rent was paid—it might be advisable to aid those who were unable to acquire the knowledge necessary for obtaining the best return from their holdings. But with large estates and well-organized, powerful agricultural societies, such as the Royal Agricultural Society, with 9,000 members, and subscriptions amounting to £9,000 annually, it did seem unnecessary to subsidize new schools. As Professor Wrightson observed last week, in the Paper he read before the Society of Arts, the paternal principle of government had never found favour in England. Almost everything in the way of advancement was left to private and corporate enterprize, and the results of this system of self-help had been magnificent. Further on he said—
  "Dairy farmers, the men above all others singled out for assistance, have been exceptionally fortunate. No class of men have progressed more rapidly with the times. They have wiped out the obloquy of a few years ago with regard to the alleged inferiority of their butter and cheese,

  15
  and these English products are once more equal, if not superior, to those imported from Denmark, Brittany, and Normandy."
  With this opinion and the evidence gained from the Agricultural Returns, it would be absurd to say that dairy farmers had not made great strides of late years in Great Britain; and they would undoubtedly continue to do so on those estates where the tenants were not paralyzed by too heavy payments of rent, tithe, and taxes. If, however, they were overburdened with charges of this description, they would be unable to hold their own when brought into competition with the whole world, and no amount of State-aided education would achieve the desired result—that of enabling them to pay such an interest on their capital as would satisfy their requirements. In conclusion, he would urge on Her Majesty's Government, if they saw the advisability of acceding to the recommendations of the Commission, not to enter into the speculation suggested of buying a 200-acre farm near Rugby for, say, £12,000, but to hand over the money to the Royal Agricultural Societies of England, Scotland, and Ireland, to be utilized by them in disseminating dairy knowledge throughout the entire Kingdom, a course not involving the present or any succeeding Government in an obligation to continue such grants, and one that would from the past history of those societies assure the money being expended for the benefit of practical agriculture.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, that the special knowledge which was known to be possessed by the noble Lord who had just spoken would induce their Lordships to attach great weight to his observations. With respect to the Question that was put by the noble Lord behind him, he felt some difficulty in answering it. A Question had been put in the other House, and the Government intimated that a Minister of Agriculture was to be appointed, if Parliament should sanction it, with whom it would naturally rest to determine what should be done in the matter. As Head, at present, of the Department charged with the interests of agriculture, he might say that, even without adopting the suggestions of the Commission as embodied in their Report, he still felt that there would be many
  16
  opportunities, in the course of the present year, of rendering assistance to some extent in aid of local effort, and in consonance with the principle of self-help which the noble Lord opposite had just commended. He regretted very much that the two Reports had not been accompanied by the Evidence. It was in print, but he could not say how soon it would be laid before the House. He would, however, take steps to ascertain how soon it could be produced, because it was very desirable that those who took a special interest in the matter should be cognizant of the Evidence which had been laid before the Commission. It would be observed that in that Commission, as in many others, a good many leading questions were put, which showed pretty clearly the bias which suggested them. When witnesses had a pecuniary subsidy dangled before their eyes, it was not to be expected that they should have the moral courage of the noble Lord opposite and say they would rather not have it. There were some who, to a certain extent, did so; but it would be found that some of those who managed dairies skilfully and with success fully appreciated the value of their own excellent practice. Many inquiries had been made of him by deputations and others upon this subject. A large deputation from Scotland had asked that whatever assistance was given should be extended equitably to that country, and had urged that too much importance was attached to dairies in comparison with other branches of agriculture. Indeed, they said that the least depressed interest was that of dairy farming, and that other departments of agriculture required more teaching and more assistance than dairy farming, while they by no means desired to check any support to that calling. There had not been much done in the way of practical teaching in connection with the Science and Art Department. A certain amount was expended from year to year; but it was mainly upon what might be called theoretical teaching and book learning rather than practical agriculture. There was a time when there was in this country agricultural instruction connected with elementary schools; but it was done away with, because it was found that it interfered with the gaining of grants for general education. In agricultural districts boys left the ele-

  17
  mentary schools at an early age, and it was necessary that they should in early youth acquire a knowledge of horses and other animals, and that was knowledge of a more practical kind than they could acquire by gardens or allotments in the neighbourhood of a school. It might be desirable to provide by small scholarships for assisting some boys to obtain a more scientific knowledge of the business in which they were to be employed. But, after all, he could not help thinking that for the bulk of the lads the best instruction in agriculture would be instruction gained on the land itself. It was impossible in schools, except, perhaps, in evening schools, to gain time for special instruction, and it was to the farmers we must look to train the boys they required to do their work. He had heard that an agricultural school had been recently set up in Glasgow for the training of young farmers. Those were assisted by landlords, and considerable numbers attended the classes from a distance. That seemed to him the right sort of beginning. He could not hold out any hope that anything would be done in the way of distinct State foundations during the present year. The so called Agricultural Department were not in a position at present to make the inquiries which would be necessary for an undertaking of such magnitude. He might mention that the Veterinary part of the Department of the Council had met with an approbation throughout the country which was almost remarkable, considering the very unpleasant duties which it had to discharge in enforcing the law with regard to diseased cattle, and endeavouring to prevent the spread of infection. With regard to the Agricultural Department more recently set up, it had been proceeding by degrees; but strong representations had been made to him that it was very desirable there should be greater strength infused into it; and he was of opinion that it needed it. The Department was beginning to attract a great deal of attention throughout the country; and he might promise on its behalf that the representations in question would be carefully considered. He trusted that the agriculturists would succeed in deriving substantial benefit from the new Ministry if established. Practically, his answer amounted to this. He believed the Department would re-
  18
  ceive from the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year a sum which would be expended in obtaining information as to the real needs of the country, and in giving assistance, as far as possible, to local efforts in testing the advantages which might be derived from the present condition of teaching in this country. The Department did not hold out the expectation that the State was going to do everything; but if the localities showed that they were really in need of assistance by taking steps themselves, the Department would be prepared to assist them this year with a view to further action if, with sufficient knowledge, it was found desirable to go further in the matter.

THE CHESHIRE CONSTABULARY— COMPENSATION TO POLICE—CONSTABLES COOPER AND PROUDLOVE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether they have taken any steps to secure reward or compensation to two police officers named Cooper and Proudlove for the very serious injuries received by them from a gang of thieves near Bowden Station? The circumstances which gave rise to his Question were that a gang of poachers, finding the night too light to go after rabbits, had stolen 17 geese from a farmyard pond. Information had been given to the police, and two officers went after the thieves. They took refuge in a railway but; but, finding there were only three policemen, they said—"Let us go out and murder them." Accordingly, they went out and so battered the heads of Sergeant Cooper and Police-constable Proudlove that for some time their lives were despaired of. Two men were put on their trial for this affair; one got six months, the other proved an alibi. Two other men were tried on the 7th of this month, at Chester, for feloniously wounding the two police officers, and both got eight years' penal servitude. These police officers had shown great courage in pursuing so large a number of thieves, and he thought the Government might well go out of its way to show its approbation of their conduct. He asked the attention of the Government to the fact that in Cheshire and the adjoining couuties, with the exception of the

  19
  district round Liverpool, of late years the gangs of marauders had increased in number and in lawlessness, and he dated this increase from the time Sir William Harcourt occupied the Home Office. It was not owing alone or so much to his speeches at the time of passing the Hares and Rabbits Bill, though those, no doubt, had contributed to this result; but the encouragement to lawlessness and violence which he and his Friends had given in Ireland had had their bad effects in this country also.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Earl BROWNLOW): The Government have received a Report from the Chief Constable of Cheshire, from which it appears that these two police officers received very serious injuries while endeavouring to arrest a gang of men who were stealing geese on the night of November 5, 1887. The policemen appear to have displayed great courage and British pluck in the encounter which took place, and I have great pleasure in bearing testimony to their bravery. At the same time, I must point out that it is for the Court of Quarter Sessions, and not for the Government, to take such steps as they think proper to secure reward or compensation to members of the County Police Force, where, in the opinion of the Court, special gallantry has been displayed or serious injuries received in the discharge of their ordinary duties.

HIGH SHERIFFS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the mode of appointment, the duties, and the obligations of the high sheriffs of counties, and to report."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF TUE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, he had great pleasure in acceding to the Motion on the part of the Government.
  Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
Joint Committee with the Committee of the House of Commons appointed 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 Lords following were named of the Committee:
20

E. Bathurst.

L. Colville of Culross.

L. Balfour of Burley.

L. Stalbridge.

L. Monk Bretton.

L. Kensington.

Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a chairman.

POOR LAW RELIEF.
Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

L. Abp. Canterbury.

V. Gordon (E. Aberdeen).

E. Spencer

E. Milltown.

L. Balfour.

E. Onslow.

L. Hopetoun (E. Hopetoun).

E. Stratford.

E. Kimberley.

L. Thing.

The Committee to meet To-morrow at Three o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.

NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION) BILL.
Read 1a to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.) (No. 49.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter
past Ten o'clock.