Sitting of 9 August 1889

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL [LORDS]. (By Order.)
  Order for Consideration read.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. Courtney,: This is a Bill upon which it is necessary that I should make some remarks. The House is aware that many Railway Companies who have built up their enterprise by Acts of Parliament containing varying powers have, of late, simplified their capital account by concerting their Preference and Debenture stock into a unified stock. That has been done by several of the great Railway Companies to the simplification of
  878
  their accounts and the advantage of the stock holders, nor is there any question of public interest involved in such conversion of their Preference and Debenture stock. They are irredeemable, and when we speak of £100,000 Preference stock at 5 per cent, and of £100,000 Preference stock at 4 per cent we ought more strictly to speak of the sums of £5,000 and £4,000 which are annually payable upon them. This Bill deals with the Debenture and Preference stock of the Taff Vale Railway Company, who propose to follow the precedent of other Companies, and if it had been confined to this object I should not have felt it necessary to trouble the House. But the Bill does more. The House is probably aware that many things have been attempted, and that some things have been done, with respect to the ordinary stock of Railway Companies—such, for instance, as dividing the ordinary stock into Deferred and Preferred stock, and increasing the nominal amount of stock. Many schemes have been proposed for producing the same simplicity in regard to ordinary stock as that which has been secured in regard to Preference and Deferred stock. The Bill now before the House, as it originally appeared in another place, proposed to enable this company, with the approval of the shareholders, to prepare and carry out a scheme of unification and simplification of its ordinary stock. The provisions of this Bill, and of other Bills with similar objects, have occupied the attention of my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees in another place and myself; but most of the measures which have been introduced have proved abortive and have been abandoned. But I think that on the present occasion a solution has been arrived at which may recommend itself to the House not only as good in itself, but as one which establishes a precedent, although it need not be followed unless it is approved by the general sense and wisdom of Parliament. This Taff Vale Railway is not a passenger railway under Lord Dalhousie's Act, which prescribes the terms under which passenger railways may be purchased. It is a mineral railway, and the average dividend which it has been paying for some years is 15 percent. The company seek to convert their ordinary stock into

  879
  one uniform stock of £250, that being about the market value of the stock with the high dividend now enjoyed by the Company. It is desired by the shareholders to increase the amount of the stock and thereby to make the price of it more nearly approximate its nominal value. Although, apparently, a merely domestic matter, my noble Friend and myself, together with other authorities who have had the subject under consideration, are of opinion that such a conversion could not be recommended to the approval of Parliament, but it has been suggested that it might be convenient to convert the old stock into a new stock of larger amount, provided a limit of dividend might be fixed. This railway company have complied with that suggestion, and have embodied in this Bill provisions by which every £100 of ordinary stock is converted into £250 ordinary Stock carrying in future a maximum dividend of 6 per cent. It is further provided that if the profits of the company should hereafter enable it to pay more than 6 per cent, any surplus in excess of 6 per cent shall be applied to the reduction of the tolls, rates, and charges leviable by the company, or in such other manner, in the interests of the public, as Parliament may from time to time suggest. It is further provided that the accounts shall be rendered under the ordinary Companies' Act, but so rendered that if, hereafter, any action could be taken under Lord Dalhousies' Act for the purchase of the railway the conditions and information necessary to enable that Act to be carried out shall always be in the hands of the Board of Trade. The Bill is of a simple character. It consolidates the Preference Stock according to the principles followed by all the Railway Companies of the country, and it also increases the amount of the ordinary Stock, accompanying that increase with the limitation that the dividend is not to exceed 6 per cent, and that if there is any increase of profit it shall go to the benefit of the public in the reduction of charges, tolls, and rates. I think that, under these circumstances, the Bill may safely receive the assent of Parliament. I may, however, remind the House that there is another stage, the Third Reading, yet to follow, so that the House does not lose command of the Bill by assenting to the present stage.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: My attention has been called to this matter during the progress of the Bill through both Houses. I wish to say, in addition to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, that I think the House is very much indebted to him and to the Chairman of Committees in the other House for the care with which they have watched the interests of the public in this matter. The question of the increase of the Stock of Railway Companies by the process known as "watering" is, of course, one of great importance. For reasons which seemed to them sufficient, and in regard to which they appear to be quite unanimous, the shareholders of the Taff Vale Company desire to effect this change in their ordinary Stock. The right hon. Gentleman and his noble Colleague in the other House, as a condition of assenting to the proposal of the company, have insisted on the insertion of clauses in the Bill which, I think, are largely in the public interests, and which, if adopted as a precedent, will certainly secure the public advantage. All I would suggest is, that if this Bill should be followed next Session by other applications to Parliament for the same powers, that Parliament might usefully consider whether a strong Committee ought not to be appointed—probably a Joint Committee of both Houses—to look into the whole question, and report to Parliament as to the way in which the matter can best be dealt with.
  Bill, as amended, considered, and. ordered to be read a third time.

  BURY CORPORATION BILL [LORDS.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [8th August], "That in the case of the Bury Corporation Bill [Lords], Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read a third time."—(Sir Henry James.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. COURTNEY: I beg to move—
  "That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee in respect of Sections 28 and 29.
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee that it is against the spirit and intent o Standing Order 173a to extend beyond sixty years the term of repayment of an existing debt,

  881
  contracted by a municipal corporation or local authority under a previous Act or Acts."
  This Bill is promoted by the Corporation of Bury to authorise them to make certain waterworks. If it had been confined to that, there would be no occasion for me to trouble the House with any remarks; but there are two clauses in the Bill which are totally apart from all the rest of its structure and constituting, in fact, a separate Bill. It is to these clauses that I desire to direct the attention of the House. The Bury Corporation acquired the waterworks under an Act passsed in 1872, and upon the works so acquired, there is a considerable debt. The Act of 1872 prescribed the conditions under which that debt should be repaid—conditions which, apparently, were not well understood by the Corporation of Bury at the time the Act was passed. The Corporation came again to Parliament in 1885, and the conditions of the repayment of debt contracted under the Act of 1872 came under the consideration of the Committee to whom the Bill of 1885 was referred. The Committee laid down very strict provisions as to the repayment of the debt, and, in fact, limited the repayment of the amount owing at that period to a period of 43 years. The Bury Corporation now come before Parliament with what is practically an Omnibus Bill, into which they introduce two clauses dealing with the existing debt and the conditions of repayment which were prescribed by the Acts of 1872 and 1885. In these two clauses the Corporation desire to extend the period of repayment of the still existing debt from a period of 43 years to 80 years. But Parliament has passed a Standing Order restricting the period for the redemption of debt under such circumstances to a period of 60 years. That is the Standing Order of Parliament in regard to applications for power to construct works and to contract loans in connection with them. Now, it is obvious that the clauses to which I have called attention, inasmuch as they do not refer to any works which are authorised by the Bill, but which were authorised by a previous Bill, do not in so many words come within the scope of this Standing Order No. 173a, but it must be apparent to the House that they come within the meaning and
  882
  intent of the Standing Order, because otherwise the Standing Order would be reduced to a nullity. Or this process would be possible: a Bill might be introduced this Session authorising works to be made in conformity with the Standing Order which prescribes 60 years as the term within which the money borrowed for the construction of the works must be repaid, and next Session another Bill might be introduced extending the term from 60 to 80 years. It might then be said that the second Bill did not come within the Standing Order because it did not authorise money to be raised for the construction of the works. Therefore, the Standing Order is capable of being reduced to a nullity. You conform to it one year by bringing in a Bill for works, and prescribing a period of 60 years for the repayment of borrowed money, and then you apply for an extension of time, and the Committee are able to say that, inasmuch as the Bill does not authorise a loan to be granted in order to meet the cost of the works, it does not come within the scope of the Standing Order. It is quite clear that that is a contention which must be at once met and reprobated. The Standing Order would, in the event of such a construction being put upon it by the Committee, at once disappear. I have, therefore, felt it necessary to put upon the Paper this Motion for the recommittal of the Bill to the former Committee, with an Instruction in reference to the two clauses to which I have referred. If the House agree to that Instruction and re-commit the Bill, I presume that the Committee will be obliged to carry out the intention of the Standing Order by reducing the term so that it shall not exceed a period of 60 years. I think that the Committee have gone grievously wrong in supposing that the question of extending the period for the repayment of the existing debt does not come within the Standing Order. I am bound to pay some respect to the circumstances which they report in respect of this particular Corporation—circumstances which rather amount to an ad misericordiam appeal rather than to anything substantial. They say that when the Corporation of Bury got their Act in 1872 they thought they were allowed 100 years for the repayment of the debt; that they were

  883
  obliged to put by a Sinking Fund for the payment of the debt, and to allow it to accumulate every year, which is a very different thing from the repayment of debt. They pray for leniency, and they point out that they are burdened with costly works and with a Sinking Fund, which tells very heavily upon them. The Committee say that the terms are onerous and ought to be relaxed, but in that case the Corporation ought to come to Parliament and ask for its sanction, notwithstanding the Standing Order. They have, however, assumed that they have a right to do what they have done, and that assumption ought not to be allowed to pass without notice. Under these circumstances, I think the House might so far assent to the view taken by the Committee as not to insist on the term of 60 years in this ease, but might make a compromise fixing it at 70 years, a sort of half-way house between what the Corporation ask for and the Committee good-naturedly assented to, and that which the House has laid down as the proper period of repayment. If that suggestion recommends itself to the House, it will be easy to add words to the Instruction to the Committee to amend the Bill by inserting 70 instead of 80. I throw out that suggestion with some reluctance, because I recollect that only two years ago another Committee—upon a Sheffield Bill—went wrong in a similar way, they then condoned the error, and we are now asked to condone the same error a second time. My view is that, as the error has been pointed out once, it ought not to have been repeated. At present I will content myself by moving the Instruction which appears on the Paper, but I shall not be averse to consider the compromise which I have suggested.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "[Lords]," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words
  "the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee in respect of sections 28 and 29:—'that it be an Instruction to the Committee, that it is against the spirit and intent of Standing Order 173A to extend beyond sixty years the term of repayment of an existing debt contracted by a Municipal Corporation or Local Authority under a previous Act or Acts.'"—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR H. JAMES: I am well aware of the value of the public time at this period of the Session, and therefore I will not occupy the attention of the House at the time of private business at an unnecessary length; the question, however, is of such vast importance to my constituents, that I make no apology to the House for asking to occupy its attention while I state the peculiar circumstances under which my constituents seek relief. I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the construction he has put upon the Standing Order; but I think that when I have related the whole of the circumstances to the House, it will be considered that the ratepayers of Bury are entitled to the relief they seek. I am not going to ask for the repeal or alteration of the Standing Order, nor have the promoters of the Bill asked for any relief from it. In the year 1872 the Corporation of Bury found it necessary to become the owners of the water works so that they might supply the town of Bury with water. They took upon themselves a burden of £590,000, and they found themselves required not only to find water for the town of Bury, but for the outlying districts, which are greater than Bury itself. The whole burden of the expenditure fell upon Bury ratepayers alone. They were under the impression that the debt they contracted was to be paid off in 100 years; they would not, and could not, have under taken to pay it off in less. The Standing Order did not come into existence until 1882, and it must be borne in mind that before 1882 100 years was not an unusual period to fix for the payment of money borrowed for water purposes. My constituents accepted the burden, and went on performing what they believed to be their duty. In 1885 they came to Parliament for another Bill, and the penalty was imposed upon them that within 44 years of that time they should pay off the debt. What has been the result? The inhabitants of Bury are now paying the enormous sum of 11d. in the £1 for this sinking fund alone, and, with one exception, I believe there is no town in the kingdom which pays more than 2¾d. In Birmingham, the figure is only ¼d., but the average is, I believe, 1½d. Yet Bury is paying 11d., and is paying it for a supply of water, four-sevenths of which

  885
  is supplied outside the borough to non-ratepayers. The outlying districts pay nothing towards the sinking fund, but the people of Bury are compelled to pay the whole. The Chairman of Ways and Means says that the Bill contains two clauses, which have nothing to do with the rest of the Bill. He is entirely in error. Bury is compelled to provide an additional supply of water for manufacturing as well as household purposes, and it was only when they found themselves compelled to borrow a sum of £130,000 that they came to this House to ask for relief. When they borrowed in 1872 they did not know that they would be compelled to pay the money in less than 100 years, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees succeeds in carrying his proposition, the result will be that either the manufacturers or the poor people will be deprived of the supply of water which they absolutely require. No other town in England approaches Bury in the heavy burden it has to bear for its water supply. Two years ago the town of Sheffield came to this House and obtained the concession for which Bury now asks, yet the case of Sheffield was not one half as strong; the concession was granted because Sheffield was maintaining works greater than the requirements of the town demanded. Sheffield asked for 90 years. We are only asking for 80–62 years from the present time. The Chairman of Ways and Means made a protest in the case of Sheffield; but he did not ask the Committee to reject the conclusion the Committee had arrived at. Yet he asks the House to reject the conclusion which the Committee have come to in the case of Bury. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take the same course as that which he took in 1887, and to support the Report of the Committee, in consequence of the special circumstances of the case. I presume, that the Standing Order represents a principle, but there are exceptional circumstances in this case to which the Standing Order ought not to apply. If this Bill is not passed, it will be impossible to continue the sanitary arrangements which are essential for the well-being of the town. I therefore earnestly entreat the House to allow this concession to be made to the town of Bury.
  SIR J. PULESTON: As Chairman of the Committee by whom this Bill was considered, I wish to say that the peculiar circumstances of the measure have been succinctly stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James). The Chairman of Ways and Means has to some extent disavowed his action in connection with the Corporation of Sheffield.
  MR. COURTNEY: No.
  SIR J. PULESTON: At any rate he has asserted that it ought not to be a precedent; but the Committee could not ignore what had taken place in reference to Sheffield. We discussed the question of Bury strictly on its own merits, and if the Chairman of Ways and Means had sat upon the Committee and heard the whole of the evidence, I am sure he would have concurred in what was, in fact, the unanimous view of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has repudiated the idea of interpreting the Standing Order as applying to existing debts, but the President of the Local Government Board distinctly stated that the Standing Order of 1882 did not apply to pre-existing debts. We also took into consideration the very important fact that the Bury Corporation came to Parliament for other powers quite distinct from the original powers of the Bury Improvement Act, which have resulted in the onerous charge of an elevenpenny rate. Such a water rate as that is unknown, I believe, in any other community. If this Bill passes, the inhabitants of Bury will have to pay a rate of 2½d., which was, I believe, the sum against which the people of Sheffield protested. The Committee passed the Bill without the least hesitation, and they carefully considered the exact meaning of the Standing Order. I do not agree with the Chairman of Ways and Means in the interpretation he has placed upon the Standing Order, but I agree in the view of the President of the Local Government Board, that loans contracted before the Standing Order came into existence in 1882 do not come within the Standing Order. The Standing Order refers to loans under the Bill, but this is not in any sense a loan under the Bill. The Chairman of Ways and Means says that we ought to have come to the House and asked for permission to disobey the Standing Order, but we did not consider

  887
  that that was necessary, as we were not infringing the Standing Order. In view of the lateness of the period of the Session and the urgency of the question, we did not think that that was at all practicable. I trust that the House will not refuse to adopt the Report of the Committee. The Chairman of Ways and Means has admitted that the case of Bury is exceptional, seeing that he himself has proposed to set aside the Standing Order by giving 70 years instead of 60. The Committee had evidence that it is impossible to carry on the much needed sanitary reforms in Bury, owing to this grievous burden of 11d. in the £1.
  MR. BEADLAUGH: The question before the House is one of the very highest importance. When the Sheffield Water Bill was under consideration two years ago, I entered my protest against it because I am of opinion that the question of the increase of local debt is one of the most serious which this country has to consider. The wisdom of this House has settled the period for the repayment of debt at 60 years, and it is a decision which ought not lightly to be departed from. There are two points which arise in this Debate. First, does this case come within the operation of the Standing Order? I understand both the right hon. and learned Member for Bury and the Chairman of Ways and Means to allege that it does not come within the prohibitory words of the Standing Order. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Puleston) says that the Standing Order does not provide for a pre-existing debt, but surely every debt is preexisting, and the word "debt" has no meaning at all if it is to be read in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman puts it. The right hon. and learned Member for Bury contends that the Standing Order does not apply because the Bill does not provide the works, but the debt was incurred in 1872 when the Corporation took over the works. The House is now asked to repeal an Act which was accepted by the Corporation of Bury in 1885.
  SIR H. JAMES: The decision of the Committee was to that effect.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The Bury Corporation could have dropped the Bill.
  SIR H. JAMES: They were obliged to go on with the Bill because it contained other things.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Then, for the sake of getting higher benefits they decided to go on with it?
  SIR H. JAMES: For the sake of performing a higher duty.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I presume that all these Bills are introduced for the sake of performing a higher duty, and if it be possible to create a debt which is to be spread over an enormous period, there will be no indisposition to create it, because the burden will fall lightly on the generation which creates it. The Corporation of Bury saw fit in 1885 for benefits received to agree to a term of 55 years for the repayment of the debt—12 years having lapsed and 43 years to come. Under these circumstances I ask the House not to create another bad precedent but to insist upon the observance of the Standing Order. We are told that the outlying people take the water. I presume they pay for it.
  SIR H. JAMES: The ratepayers pay in addition a rate of 11d. in the £1.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: But the water is surely not given to the outlying districts at a loss?
  SIR H. JAMES: Yes, it is.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Then all I can say is that Bury for some purposes of its own must have seen fit to supply these outlying districts with water.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVEENMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I listened with great attention to the speech of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I think the House is under great obligations to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing under its notice such cases as the one now before us. In my opinion the Committee to whom the Bill was referred undoubtedly departed from the spirit if not the letter of the Standing Order. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury did not deal with the case fully. He simply contended that there are peculiar circumstances in the case of Bury. That may be good ground why the House should show some regard for the circumstances of Bury, but I do not think it was sufficient to justify the Committee to whom the Bill was referred, in going, as I think they did, outside their powers and entirely disregarding a Standing Order of the House, which says that no longer period than 60 years shall be allowed for the

  889
  repayment of a loan. My hon. Friend behind me (Sir J. Puleston) spoke of the case of Sheffield, and seemed to think that because the Standing Order was broken in that particular case, it might properly be broken in this case also. He even went further, and justified the breaking of the Standing Order.
  SIR J. PULESTON: On the contrary, I said that I did not think we were breaking the Standing Order.
  MR. RITCHIE: My hon. Friend contended that in a certain sense the breaking of the Standing Order might tend to strengthen it. Now, I attach very much value to this Standing Order, and I think it would be a misfortune if the House were to regard with equanimity the setting aside the regulations which the House itself has made for safeguarding the interests of future ratepayers. The Local Government Board are constantly met by pleas such as that which has been put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury. I have had again and again to consider applications from Local Bodies for an extension of time, but it is our duty to protect the ratepayers of the future against the ratepayers of the present. There is hardly a case where a plea is made where special circumstances are not brought before the Local Government Board, which, in the opinion of the persons who press them, would not justify the Board in departing from the healthy principle of not allowing too long a time for repayment. In this case it is for the House to consider whether the circumstances are such as to call upon us to adopt the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means, or, in distinct terms, to express our concurrence in the view of the Committee. If the Chairman of Ways and Means considers it his duty to persevere with the Motion he has placed on the Paper, I for one shall not complain of his action. But I think he has shown that in his opinion there is something to be said for the case of Bury, which, if the Committee are properly instructed, may entitle it to consideration, and that 70 years may be given. There is one ground to which some weight may be attached, and it is that these works were undoubtedly authorised before the passing of the Standing Order. I certainly think that that is a ground for an appeal to the House in this case. The hon. Mem-
  890
  ber for Devonport (Sir J. Puleston) has implied that I laid it down as a principle in the Sheffield case that the Standing Order ought not to apply to works which had been previously authorised. I did nothing of the kind. What I did say was that no such case had been presented since the Standing Order had been passed, and that it was to prevent such things being done in the future that the Standing Order was passed. That language hardly bears the interpretation put upon it by my hon. Friend considering the fact that these works were undoubtedly authorised prior to the passing of the Standing Order, and that the Corporation were under the belief that they had been allowed 100 years for repayment of the debt—that not being an unusual period at that particular time—it is a matter for consideration whether the House will not be willing to allow the Bill to go on. If it does, I think it ought to record in the strongest manner its opinion that this is contrary to the spirit of the Standing Order, and it should do so in such terms as would distinctly prevent a precedent from being established. I would therefore suggest the adoption of a Resolution to this effect—
  "That this House is of opinion that the term proposed for the repayment of money borrowed by the Corporation of Bury is contrary to the spirit of the Standing Order 173a, but haying regard to the fact that the works were authorised before the passing of the Standing Order this House orders that the Bill be taken into consideration to-morrow."
  MR. HOYLE: As it is proposed to make the term 70 years instead of 60, I think we may regard the Standing Order as being out of the way, and may consider the question on its merits. The Corporation of Bury are comparatively a new body, and they are engaged in carrying on these works under circumstances of exceptional difficulty. Bury is situated on the Irwell, and there are brick works, dye works, and other works which cast their refuse into the open river with open drains without deoderisers, emptying themselves into the Irwell. I am afraid that the last generation were so intent upon the development of trade that they paid but little attention to the health of the people, and the consequence is that the Corporation of Bury have to do the work which the last generation should

  891
  have done. The Corporation of Bury have incurred serious financial responsibilities, and when they came to Parliament in 1872 they understood that the capital sum was to be paid back in 100 years. They only ask the House now to confirm the decision of two Committees by making the term 80 instead of 100 years. They are simply endeavouring to secure the health of the people of Bury, many of whom are very poor, and if this rate of 11d. in the £1 is to remain, it will undoubtedly press most heavily on persons of small means whose life is one of continuous toil. The leading inhabitants of Bury have subscribed handsomely to recreation grounds, but if the House refuses the relief now asked for it will be thought that the burden thrown upon the people is too heavy for them to bear, and in future voluntary efforts will be abandoned. I, therefore, ask the House to reject the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  MR. SEXTON: The action of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury is quite natural, but I heard with some surprise the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, and that of the President of the Local Government Board. Those speeches indicated to me an alacrity in breaking the Standing Order in the case of an English Corporation, represented by an influential Member of this House; and I cannot help contrasting the course now taken with that which was taken in regard to the Corporation of Dublin, whose case presented a remarkable analogy with that of Bury. The works in regard to which the Corporation of Dublin asked for relief were authorised and executed before the Standing Order was passed; a debt considerably larger than that of the Corporation of Bury was entailed. As in the case of Bury, large outlying districts were supplied with water; it is paid for at an unremunerative rate, and the outlying townships contribute nothing to the sinking fund and nothing to the debt. Yet, when the Corporation came to this House this year for the re-arrangement of debt, they found themselves faced by officials who compelled them to cut down the period for the repayment of the debt to 55 years. The Corporation of Bury are to be
  892
  allowed 70 years. I say frankly that 60 years for waterworks is too short a period, especially when we consider that in the case of many English Corporations from 70 to 100 years have been sanctioned. Therefore, considering the circumstances of Bury, that it does supply the outlying districts, and that those outlying districts contribute nothing towards the rates of Bury, I think that Bury has made out an excellent case for special treatment. Although I complain very much of the treatment of the Corporation of Dublin, I hope that my attitude on this question will secure better treatment for Ireland in the future.
  MR. CHANCE: I think that the Irish Members are entitled to have some explanation from the Chairman of Ways and Means why Bury is to be treated better than Dublin. The object of my question is to find out why Dublin should be treated badly and Bury generously.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question of Bury is now before the House, and it has nothing to do with the case of Dublin.
  MR. CHANCE: Then I return to my original question why Bury should be treated better than Dublin, and unless I obtain some information upon the subject I shall feel it my duty to divide the House.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I presume that the Standing Order is still in existence, and that the Committee which sat upon this Bill have broken it. Why did they break it, and why should the House, in the face of its having been broken, be called upon to pass this Bill?
  SIR J. PULESTON: The Committee contend that they have not broken the Standing Order.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I am quite aware of that.
  SIR J. PULESTON: We say so in our Report.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I believe, and the House believes, that the Standing Order has been broken, as it was in the case of Sheffield. For my own part I see no reason for departing from the Standing Order.
  MR. COURTNEY: I have no right to address the House again, but I may perhaps be allowed to say a word in explanation. I wish to say that I am

  893
  entirely in the hands of the House. If it is desired that I should withdraw my Resolution and adopt the suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade I am ready to do so, and will ask leave to withdraw the Motion. [Cries of "No."] I cannot do so without the assent of the House, and if that assent is refused I will certainly divide the House.
  The House divided:—Ayes 178; Noes 60.—(Div. List, No. 294.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

QUESTONS.

  METROPOLITAN POSTMEN.
  COLONEL HUGHES: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether postmen at Woolwich receive 4s. a week less than the postmen in any other part of the Metropolis, although working the same hours; whether a memorial on this subject was presented to the Post Office Authorities two and a half years ago; when is an answer likely to be received; and, who is responsible for the delay?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL RAIKES,: (Mr. No, Sir. It is not the case that the Woolwich postmen are paid 4s. a week less than postmen in London. On the contrary, there are a good many London postmen whose wages are less than those received at Woolwich. Woolwich is not in the Metropolitan District for postal purposes. The memorial from the Woolwich men was duly received; but as I informed my hon. Friend early in the year, the question of making a change there depended on the settlement of the general rates for postmen's wages throughout the Metropolitan District, which has only recently been completed, and will shortly be submitted to the Treasury.

  ARSENAL WORKMEN.
  COLONEL HUGHES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War who is responsible for the delay in Government action upon the Report of the Select Committee as to arsenal workmen, entered before 1870, being entitled to superannuation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: I cannot admit that there has been any delay at all. The Government would have been much to blame if, in a matter of serious financial importance, they had not given careful consideration to the evidence given before the recent Committee.

  THE WOOLWICH POST OFFICE.
  COLONEL HUGHES: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the reason for the delay in obtaining Treasury sanction for the proposed new Post Office at Woolwich, recommended by the Postmaster General?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer this question. Communications are passing between the Post Office, the War Office, and the Treasury, with a view to seeing whether the necessity for a new Post Office may be obviated by the adoption of measures calculated to relieve the pressure on the present office, which is chiefly due to the large number of Army pensioners requiring to be paid by money orders.

  THE WOOLER CHURCHYARD.
  MR. F. MACLEAN (in the absence of Sir EDWARD GREY): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the churchyard at Wooler was to be closed by Order of the Queen in Council on 31st July, and that no new burial ground has been provided, he will take steps to see that suitable provision for burials is made in proper time?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: The operation of the Order in Council in question has, on the application of the Vicar, and with the approval of the Inspector, been postponed till the 30th of November next. In the meantime, I hope that arrangements will be made for the provision of a new burial ground. I have no power to compel a parish to provide a new burial ground. All that I can do is to call the attention of the authorities to what the law requires when a burial ground is closed by Order in Council, and this I have already done in this particular instance.

  IRELAND-ALLEGED OUTRAGE BY ORANGEMEN AT CORKSTOWN.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaints have reached him that on the 29th July an Orange drumming party paraded the streets of Cookstown, County Tyrone, and stopped in front of the Catholic Church, using offensive language calculated to lead to a breach of the peace, and that at the further end of the town they fired five shots in the presence of District Inspector Yates, Head Constable Martin, and a force of Constabulary, at a number of Catholic young men playing football in a field; and, if true, what steps the authorities intend taking in the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The Constabulary Authorities report that the drumming party did not stop in front of the Roman Catholic Church, nor make use of any threatening language whatever in the hearing of the police, who were with them on duty at the time. It is the case that at the further end of the town five shots were fired. They were not discharged at a number of young men playing football, but were fired in the air. The police were unable to identify the person or persons who fired the shots, as it was dusk at the time, and the crowd was a large one.
  MR. BLANE: May I ask if the fact that in the party there were several men armed with fireams would not constitute the assembly an illegal assembly liable to be dispersed by force?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the fact mentioned by the hon. Member would of itself be sufficient to constitute the assembly an illegal one.

  UNPAID CHARITY RENT CHARGES.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, as representing the Charity Commissioners, when the Return of Unpaid Charity Rent Charges, ordered last Session, for six English counties, is likely to be completed?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: So much of the order of last
  896
  Session for the Return of Unpaid Charity Rent Charges for the six English counties of Cumberland, Derby, Devon, Suffolk, Warwick, and Worcester as relates to the counties of Warwick and Worcester was discharged on the 29th of July last. The Return for the other four counties was laid on the Table of the House on the 8th inst. If a Return for the counties of Warwick and Worcester should be ordered by the House, such a Return can be prepared so as to be ready for presentation early in next year.

  EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to a draft Report on the condition of "exceptional children in primary schools," prepared by Dr. Francis Warner, as Honorary Secretary of a Committee appointed by the Psychological Section of the British Medical Association, to consider this subject, and published in the "British Medical Journal" of 27th July; and, whether, in consideration of the new and important questions in primary education treated of in this Report, he will authorise the publication of the full text of the investigations on which it is founded?
  SIR W.HARTDYKE: The hon. Member has called my attention to the Report in question, and I have no doubt that the intrinsic importance of the medical questions with which it deals will obtain for it a sufficient share of public notice. I have neither the means nor the right to authorise the publication of anything in connection with the inquiry upon which the Report is based.

  GOVERNMENT STOCK AND THE POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is now prepared to give greater publicity to the fact that Government stock can be purchased through the agency of the Post Office Savings Bank, by means of advertisements or otherwise; whether he can state the amount at present invested through the above agency; and, whether he will cause to be re-issued, and sold at a low price, "Aids to Thrift," originally pub-

  897
  lished during the time the late Mr. Fawcett was Postmaster General?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that I have directed a fresh notice to be issued to all Postmasters throughout the Kingdom, desiring them to exhibit in a more conspicuous place the printed notices with which they have been furnished. The amount invested through the Post Office Savings Bank on the 31st July last was £7,007,767, of which£3,003,157 has at different times been sold, leaving a balance on 31st July of £4,004,610. I have already caused the essential parts of the work called "Aids to Thrift" to be reproduced in the Post Office Handbook, price one penny, which can be obtained at any Post Office, or ordered from postmen.

  WESTMINSTER HALL.
  MR. DELISLE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will engage to have the new additions to Westminster Hall completed, both within and without, before the next Session of Parliament; and whether he proposes to continue the parapet, wrought iron railings, and gas-lamps as far as the St. Stephen's entrance, after the pattern of the existing parapet, railings, and gas-lamps from the Clock Tower to the corner of the new addition to Westminster Hall; and, if so, whether he will engage to have the works completed and the rubbish cleared away as soon as possible?
  MR. ROE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works how soon the present hoarding on the west side of Westminster Hall will be removed and replaced with a suitable iron railing; and if he can inform the House when the scaffolding, workshops, and stone-cutting machinery, which have so long disfigured Westminster Abbey, will be taken away?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: The plans for laying out the grounds adjoining the new addition to Westminster Hall, and for the construction of the necessary boundary fence are still under consideration, and until they have been approved it is not possible to begin the works. The cost will be very considerable, and it will be necessary to submit to Parliament an Estimate for provision of funds. It may, therefore, not be
  898
  possible to complete the works before next Session. The Office of Works has no responsibility in connection with Westminster Abbey, but I have communicated with the rev. Canon in residence, and he assures me that the architect is using all possible despatch in the completion of the work.

  IRELAND—COMMISSION OF THE PEACE—MR. JAMES BYRNE
  MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.): I beg to ask Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table Copies of the Correspondence betwen the Lord Chancellor and Mr. James Byrne, of Wallstown Castle, resulting in the dismissal of the latter from the Commission of the Peace for acting as Justice on a charge against the police in an adjoining Petty Sessions District within his own County (Cork); whether the Lord Chancellor, when dismissing Mr. Byrne, had under his notice the decision of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved in England (Queen v. Beckley, 20 Q. B. D. 187), holding that it was distinctly legal for a Magistrate to act within his county outside his Petty Sessions District; whether Lord Coleridge in that case said,
  "In dealing with an offence committed in the county the Magistrates for the county have jurisdiction throughout the county,"
  and Baron Pollock held that
  "The law is very jealous to preserve the jurisdiction of Magistrates, and their authority is not to he cut down without an express provision to that effect;"
  whether if this exposition of the law in England was not reported when Mr. Byrne was dismissed, the Lord Chancellor will now reinstate him; whether as all Resident Magistrates in Ireland are allowed to sit everywhere throughout their counties and some of them in several counties, and all English Magistrates can exercise jurisdiction through all their counties, a different practice is to be established for Irish Justices or their Commissions forfeited if they act on the English Law; and whether, in consequence of Mr. Byrne's dismissal, no Catholic Magistrate and no Magistrate who is not a landlord or an agent now sits for his Petty Sessions District?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: I stated, in reply to a ques-

  899
  tion put by the hon. and learned Gentleman on March 13th, that the correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Byrne, of Wallstown, had been published by Mr. Byrne, and circulated in the Press. The decision in the case quoted in the question does not appear to me to affect Mr. Byrne's case, or the reasons which induced the Lord Chancellor to act as he did. There is no analogy in the present case with the appointment of a Resident Magistrate, whose duty it is to attend, if possible, every Petty Sessions in his jurisdiction. The Lord Chancellor sees no reason whatever for reinstating Mr. Byrne. I am informed that it is not the case that no Roman Catholic who is not a landlord or an agent now sits for the district in consequence of Mr. Byrne's dismissal.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are we to understand that the law of England is not to prevail as the law in Ireland in this matter? Can English Magistrates sit where they like; and are Irish Magistrates not being Resident Magistrates to be dismissed if they sit out of their own district?
  MR. MADDEN: The reason for which the Lord Chancellor acted in this matter was not that Mr. Byrne had violated the law by acting without jurisdiction, which was the case in the instance which the hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted. It was that he had been guilty of a reprehensible practice in sitting outside his customary district for the purpose of adjudicating on a special class of cases.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will call attention to this matter on the Estimates.
  MR. COX: Will the Lord Chancellor take notice of all Magistrates who sit outside their own district?
  MR. MADDEN: A similar practice on the part of any other Magistrate coming to the notice of the Lord Chancellor will, I have no doubt, be dealt with in a similar manner.

  ALLEGED OUTRAGE ON FISHERMEN BY THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that, by direction of Sub-Inspector Bigley, of Lurgan, County Armagh, Acting Sergeant Beyers, and three other constables, fired upon a boat containing three fishermen, named James Robinson,
  900
  John Robinson, and John Campbell, on the River Bann, and that, when remonstrated with by the fishermen on their conduct, the Sergeant pointed his rifle at John Campbell, and threatened "to shoot him to hell," if he spoke another word; and whether, since the Magistrate at Portadown has granted a warrant for the arrest of Acting Sergeant Beyers, the Government will take any steps in the prosecution?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary authorities report that District Inspector Bigley gave no such direction as alleged in the question, nor was he present on the occasion referred to. Robinson has alleged that Acting Sergeant Beyers fired at him, but the Acting Sergeant denies the charge. He has been admitted by the Magistrate who issued the warrant to bail in his own reeognisance of £20. A summons has been issued by the District Inspector against Acting Sergeant Beyers, which will come on for hearing at the Lurgan Petty Sessions on the 20th inst.
  MR. BLANE: Were the cartridges of these men examined when they came in? because they are issued in certain numbers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not profess to have looked into the evidence, nor do I think it would be proper to do so as the case is coming on for trial.
  MR. BLANE: Does the right hon. Gentleman know of any case in which a person firing at another was released on a £20 bail?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I presume that the Magistrate did not think that the constable fired at any particular individual, but I cannot give the hon. Member any other information than that.

  THE RIVER LEA.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what action has been taken by the Department with reference to complaints made by the Poplar District Board of Works relative to the insanitary condition of the River Lea?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I have communicated with the Corporation of West Ham with reference to the allegations of the Poplar District Board of Works, and I am awaiting their

  901
  reply. I have also directed one of the Engineering Inspectors of the Board, who has made previous inquiry as to the discharge of sewage into the River Lea by the West Ham Corporation, to visit West Ham and to report the result of his inquiries. His previous engagements have prevented his visiting the works until to-day. I expect shortly to have his Report.

  THE CARLOW POST OFFICE.
  MR. SEXTON (in the absence of Mr. Byrne): I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is in a position to state what progress, if any, has been made with the new Post Office for Carlow; and, whether he will urge the Department to proceed with the arrangements as quickly as possible?
  MR. RAIKES: I am informed by the Board of Public Works that owing to unexpected difficulties the work of adapting the premises taken for the new Post Office at Carlow has not yet been commenced; but that it will be pressed on as quickly as possible.

  THE STARR BOWKETT BUILDING SOCIETY.
  CAPTAIN HEATHCOTE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Stoke and Fenton 235th Starr Bowkett Building Society has not sent to the Registrar of Building Societies their returns for 1888, as required by 37 and 38 Vict. cap. 42, section 43; and whether he will take such measures as may be necessary to compel this Society to forward their returns for 1888 to the Registrar?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Registrar of Friendly Societies that the Society in question informed him in December last that, owing to the large number of withdrawals, arrangements were being made for winding up. No formal intimation, however, of the announced winding up has been received, and the Registrar will in a few days send the usual notice requiring a statement of accounts for the year ending July, 1888. It is, therefore, premature at present to say whether it will be necessary to take any action.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the evidence taken upstairs showed that the Registrar has completely neglected his duties as
  902
  to enforcing the sections of the Friendly Societies Act?
  MR. MATTHEWSasked for notice of the question.

  IRELAND—LAND COMMISSION— MR. BABINGTON.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the appointment of Mr. Hume Babington by the Chief Land Commission as Court Valuer to inspect certain holdings near Down patrick in cases of appeals recently heard there, and in which Messrs. Wrench and Litton have not yet given their decisions, whether he can now state if this Mr. Babington is a land agent in County Armagh; whether he invariably gave evidence on behalf of landlords in fair rent cases in County Antrim and County Derry; and, whether he will direct the attention of the Land Commission to these facts, and also to the desirability of appointing to inspect these holdings some independent valuer who is neither in the employment of the landlords nor the tenants?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This question does not appear to be substantially different to the one put down by the hon. Member for South Down on the 30th of July, and I do not think I have anything to add to the reply then given.

  MR. CONYBEARE, M.P.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the date of the medical report which has been received respecting Mr. Conybeare's health; whether it made any, and what, reference to the repeated complaints made by Mr. Conybeare as to the rheumatic affection from which he is suffering, or to the complaints made by Mr. Conybeare respecting the weakness of and pain in his eyes, which he attributes to the whitewashed walls of his cell; whether, inasmuch as Mr. Conybeare complains of suffering constant pain, sometimes so severe as to entirely cripple him and prevent him from walking, he will have further and fuller reports sent as to Mr. Conybeare's condition; whether it is the fact that on Monday last Mr. Conybeare could get only half an hour's exercise, owing to the wet weather, and on Tuesday he and all other prisoners were confined to their cells the whole

  903
  day, in consequence of the rain; whether, in view of these facts, he will reconsider his opinion that no sheltered exercise ground is needed; and, whether there is any other prison in England or Ireland in which first-class misdemeanants are confined to one small cell similar to that which Mr. Conybeare is compelled to occupy?
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will request the General Prisons Board of Ireland to direct the doctor of Londonderry Gaol at once to make a careful examination into the state of the eyesight of Mr. Conybeare, M.P.?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The notice is insufficient to deal with these questions.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Well, will the right hon. Gentleman give me the assurance that a special officer will be sent to examine into Mr. Conybeare's eyesight?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot do that. The surgeon to the gaol is a most competent man, and I have not the slightest fear that the hon. Member will be neglected.
  MR. MAC NEILL: But the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the prison doctor is a mere general practitioner, and not a specialist.
  MR. W. M'ARTHUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman request the General Prisons Board of Ireland to direct the doctor of Londonderry Gaol to at once make a careful examination into the state of Mr. Conybeare's eyesight.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Prisons Board are perfectly alive to the health of every person in the Irish prisons, and I know they are watching this case with great care.
  DR. KENNY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a general order on the question of the colouring of the cells? The matter has been already under discussion amongst the authorities and they are all agreed on the matter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that the authorities are agreed on the matter. There has been no evidence brought before me that leads me to believe that the present system of colouring the walls of prison cells is deleterious to the eyesight of the prisoners. However, I will bring the matter before
  904
  the Irish Prisons Board and take their opinion on it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the hon. Member for North East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) was in Tralee Gaol, and made representations as to the distress caused to him by the white colour of the walls, the Governor of the gaol had the evil remedied in the twinkling of an eye—causing the walls to be brown-washed? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman is it worth while to keep this question open such a length of time when, with so little trouble, the grievance of the hon. Member for Camborne could be removed?
  DR. KENNY: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

  PRISONERS AND THE PRESS.
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the fact that the General Prisons Board of Ireland have detained a letter from Mr. Conybeare, containing a paper written by that hon. Member for the editor of the Mining Journal; whether the paper contained anything more than a mere expression of Mr. Conybeare's views upon the question of mining royalties, which the editor of the journal had asked him to send, with the object of comparing them with the views of other Representatives of mining constituencies who had already contributed similar expressions of opinion on this important question; whether there was in the hon. Member's paper any reference to controversial topics connected with the causes of his imprisonment, or with Ireland generally; and whether, under the circumstances, he will direct, that the hon. Member's letter may be permitted to pass?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that a communication from Mr. Conybeare intended for the Press was submitted by the Governor of Londonderry Prison on the 31st ult., and in accordance with the established practice of the service he was informed in reply that no prisoner of any class is permitted to write to the Press. It would, in the opinion of the Prisons Board, be wholly incompatible with the maintenance of prison disci-

  905
  pline if a contrary course were permitted.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask—as the right hon. Gentleman has now made a definite statement that no prisoner of any class can now be permitted to write to the Press—whether the rule has been in existence since January 1, 1883, or whether it has only been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman himself?
  MR. A J. BALFOUR: The Prisons Board have given me the information which I have given to the House. I know no more about the subject. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will put a further question on the Paper I will endeavour to answer it.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that Mr. E. Yates and Mr. Stead were allowed to conduct their respective journals when in prison?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A question of that kind ought to be addressed not to me, but to the Home Secretary.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Then I will ask the right hon. Gentleman a question as to prison discipline in Ireland. Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that the late Richard Pigott, when in prison as a first-class misdemeanant in 1866, was allowed to conduct his newspapers?

  POST OFFICE APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. BEADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that it has been the practice to announce in the Official Postal Circular vacancies occurring in Postmasterships, &c, and the date by which application to fill such vacancy could be sent in; whether such practice has recently been departed from; whether a recent Post Office Circular contains the record of 10 appointments, all made without any previous announcement that a vacancy existed; and whether he will state to the House the reasons for the change?
  MR. RAIKES: I am quite aware of the practice to which the hon. Member refers, and no change has been made as regards the general custom. I must, at the same time, say that I am under no obligation to maintain the practice. The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that in the case of the 10 appointments to Post masterships recently made no previous announcement of a
  906
  vacancy had appeared. The fact is that only four Postmasterships were vacant, and they were all notified in the usual way in the Post Office Circular. The candidates selected to fill these four vacancies were all Postmasters, and with the view of giving as wide and simultaneous a flow of promotion as possible I selected others from among the candidates, several of whom were themselves Postmasters, to fill the posts thus rendered vacant.

  OLD CALABAR.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can communicate to the House the substance of the Report of Consul Hewett on the outrage committed at Old Calabar on the 25th of February last; and what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Germany on the subject?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Satisfactory explanations have been received from the German Government upon the subject; but it is not considered necessary to present any Papers.

  RABBIT COURSING.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I desire to ask the Home Secretary whether he has received memorials from Bath, Newcastle, and other places as to the continuance of the alleged cruel practice of "rabbit coursing" in enclosed places; and whether he will take into consideration the expediency of amending the Cruelty to Animals Act, so as to deal with this practice?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir. I have received such memorials. While greatly disapproving of the cruelty sometimes displayed in rabbit coursing, as described in the memorials, I do not see my way to the possibility of amending the law in the present state of public business.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a promise, or hold out any hope, that the question will be dealt with by legislation next Session?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member will acknowledge that it would be extremely imprudent on my part to hold out any hope of the kind.

  OMNIBUS HORSES.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to complaints that have been made to the police authorities of the bad condition and unfitness of the horses being worked in certain omnibuses in London; and whether he proposes to take any steps towards putting a stop to the practice of using unfit horses in public vehicles by giving the police authorities power to withhold or withdraw licenses from proprietors who do not possess horses adequate, in the opinion of said authorities, for the services they undertake to perform, or otherwise?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that during the year he has received complaints as to the unfitness of horses from six private persons. In consequence of these complaints inspection was ordered by the Commissioner of Police in exercise of the power vested in him by 16 and 17 Vict., c. 33, s. 2, and a veterinary surgeon was called in to report on the studs of three proprietors. In the case of two of these proprietors the inspection showed that the horses were all fit for work. In the case of the third proprietor four horses were reported unfit. If these horses are worked notices as usual will be issued, and if they are disregarded the license is liable to be revoked. The police are fully alive to their duties in this respect, and, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the provisions of the existing law are adequate for the purpose.
  MR. O'HANLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that omnibus companies and tramway companies increase their fares by double the amount on Bank holidays?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  H.M.S. SULTAN.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether, since the full Minutes of the Proceedings at the inquiry into the loss of the Captain, in 1870, and of the proceedings at the inquiry into the loss of the Vanguard, in 1876, were laid before Parliament, he would explain in what respect, if any, the inquiry into the loss of the Sultan
  908
  differed in character and purpose from these inquiries?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: In the case of the loss of the Captain and the Vanguard the only inquiry held was under Court Martial. In the case of the Sultan an investigation both by Court Martial and by a Court of Inquiry was held. I am not aware that the proceedings of any naval Court of Inquiry have ever been laid before Parliament. In the present instance the proceedings, both of the Court Martial and of the Court of Inquiry, have been published in extenso through the daily Press, but I must decline to make the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry a Parliamentary Paper.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Has there been an Admiralty Minute prepared as to this inquiry, and, if so, will it be laid before the House?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman will look into the circumstances of the Vanguard inquiry, he will see that that inquiry bears no analogy to the inquiry into the loss of the Sultan, consequently no Minute will be prepared.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: When one of Her Majesty's ships is lost, is it not right that all information concerning such loss should be given to the House of Commons?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Any hon. Member desiring to have full information can obtain it by consulting the published reports of the proceedings.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to this subject on the Appropriation Bill.

  THE CASE OF MURPHY.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is true that a constable of the X Division of the Metropolitan Police has just been dismissed the service, on the ground that he was "grievously suspected of giving false evidence;" and, whether it was upon the evidence of this constable that a costermonger named Thomas Murphy (who upon his trial set up an alibi) was in December last convicted and sent into penal servitude; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: A constable of the X Division has been dismissed from the service on the ground that he had made false statements with reference to the discharge of his duties as a police officer, and with reference to immoral conduct discreditable to the force; and also on the ground of grave suspicion attaching to the truth of a charge made by him. The case against Murphy rested principally on the evidence of this constable, and after full consideration and consultation with the learned Judge I have thought it right to release Murphy on license.

  IRELAND—PRISONERS UNDER THE CRIMES ACT.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the directions given by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, under the 14th section of "The Crimes Act, 1887," make any and what provision for counsel and solicitors of persons charged, and where may those directions be found; are those directions distinct from the rules under the 15th section; do the scales made under the latter rules relate to anything but the travelling and maintenance of the accused and their witnesses; would he state specifically whether the Gweedore prisoners to be tried in the Queen's County at a special session of the Assizes in October will receive from the Crown full and adequate aid to enable them to retain and keep the counsel and solicitors engaged and instructed for their defence before the charge of venue; and, whether there is any scale to meet such a case; and, if not, will he see that one is provided as directed by the Act?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The directions of the Lord Lieutenant, under Section 14 of the Crimes Act, do make provision for counsel and solicitors of persons charged. These directions are embodied in Treasury regulations and are at Dublin Castle. They are distinct from the rules under Section 15. The Gweedore prisoners will, of course, receive from the Crown the same aid as that already given to other prisoners in change of venue cases under the Treasury scale existing.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that that only refers to travelling expenses, and that
  910
  no person has ever received anything except for travelling expenses?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather from the information supplied to me that what is done is this: There has been provision made for the travelling expenses of witnesses and for maintenance, and in addition to that I believe there is provision made for solicitors and for counsel—under Sections 14 and 15. That is the impression I gather.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state where these directions are to be found—in what Treasury Minute?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether there is any objection to make known the contents of the Treasury Minute, but I will inquire into the matter.

  "BAD CHARACTERS" IN ENNIS.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the names of the "bad characters" with whom Martin M'Namara, hon. Secretary Crusheen Branch Irish National League, was associating with in Ennis, which led to his arrest in that town on the 25th ultimo?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: From the Report received from the Constabulary Authorities it appears that M'Namara was observed to associate with several suspects of the district. I think it would be contrary both to precedent and to the public interest to publish the names of such persons.
  MR. COX: I must press this question. The right hon. Gentleman has stigmatised as bad characters some of the most respectable inhabitants of the town of Ennis and the County of Clare, some of whom may be, for aught I know, friends of my own. I want to learn the names of the persons to whom he referred. Will he repeat his cowardly and contemptible slanders outside the House? [Loud cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must know that he is not entitled to use that language.
  MR. SHAWLEFEVRE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what is meant by the term "suspects." Is it a term known to law?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not a term known to law. I did not use it in a legal sense.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: What is the meaning of the phrase?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Persons who are under suspicion, I suppose.
  MR. COX: I rise to——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  LAND CASES FROM STRANORLAR.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask Mr. Solicitor General if he is aware that several hundreds of cases, served for hearing before the 1st November, 1887, in the Land Courts in the Union of Stranorlar alone, are still undealt with, and that the tenants are being processed in large numbers at every sessions for the old rents; and, whether he can account for the extraordinary delay in hearing these cases?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that there are 484 cases from the Union of Stranorlar unheard, and which were received before November 1, 1887. I am not aware that the tenants are being processed in large numbers for the old rents. But even were such the case, their interests are safe-guarded by the existing statutes. A Sub-Commission has been sitting continuously in County Donegal since September, 1888, and the several unions have been taken up in their turn. The last sitting for the union referred to was in December, 1888, and there will be another sitting early next Circuit for the same district. All the Sub-Commissions have been working continuously throughout Ireland and are constantly engaged. It has not been possible to arrange for more frequent sittings. The Commissioners anticipate that if the Bill introduced this week by the Government becomes law this Session, the disposal of outstanding applications to fix judicial rents will be much expedited.

  THE REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON EDUCATION.
  MR. DE LISLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give an assurance that no new Education Code will be laid upon the Table of the House of Commons next Session, nor any fresh educational legislation be proposed by Her Majesty's Government, until the Report of the Royal Commission upon Education has been amply and in
  912
  detail discussed in both Houses of Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: We are, I think, accustomed to "ample" discussion in this House, and I do not know what interpretation the hon. Gentleman would give to such an engagement as he desires me to enter into. I am extremely sorry it is not in my power to make him any pledge on the subject.
  MR. DE LISLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this matter early next Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No; I cannot undertake to provide a special time for such discussion. The hon. Gentleman is aware that hon. Members themselves are able to raise discussions on questions of this character.

  A COURT FOR CRIMINAL APPEALS.
  MR. FRANCIS MACLEAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill next Session for the constitution of a Court of Appeal in Criminal Cases?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The question of the hon. Member is one of great importance; but I am sure he will see that it is not in my power to give him an answer to a question which would have to be considered by the whole Government.
  MR. F. MACLEAN: I beg to give notice that as early as possible next Session I will call the attention of the House to the question of the advisability of constituting a Court of Appeal in criminal cases, and move a Resolution.

  THE MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT IN THE COLONIES.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies which of our Colonies have adopted the principles of the Merchandise Marks Act, how many have failed to do so, and what steps are being taken by the Colonial Office to secure uniformity in that respect?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Laws similar to the Merchandise Marks Act are in force in the following Colonies:—Canada, Newfoundland, the Cape of

  913
  Good Hope, Natal, Western Australia, Jamaica, British Guiana, British Honduras, Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, the Leeward Islands, the Falkland Islands, St. Helena, Sierra Leone, the Gambia, the Gold Coast, Lagos, Gibraltar, Ceylon, Mauritius, and the Straits Settlements. The Governments of the following Colonies have promised to introduce similar legislation:—Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, Bahamas, Barbados, Malta, and Hongkong. In Fiji, Heligoland, and Labuan, it has not been considered necessary at present to legislate, but the Governors will be instructed to do so. In Bermuda a Bill has been introduced by the Government, but has been rejected by the Legislature. The Government of New South Wales has not yet signified its intention of adopting the principles of the Act, and the Governor has been recently requested to report on the subject. The Secretary of State has taken the necessary steps to secure uniformity of legislation in Crown Colonies, and he trusts that in those Colonies in which the Crown has no control over legislation (with the unimportant exception of Bermuda) uniformity will shortly be established.

  IRELAND—THE RELEASE OF FATHER STEPHEN
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Father Stephen, the priest of Falcarragh, who was sentenced to six months' imprisonment on account of circumstances connected with the Gweedore evictions, was yesterday discharged from Derry Gaol two months before the expiration of his sentence; and, if so, what are the grounds for his discharge?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is true that Father Stephen has been released; the ground of his release is failing health.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I have received the following telegram from Father Stephen:—"I have never pleaded ill-health, and my health is still good."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am perfectly aware that Father Stephen never pleaded ill-health, but the doctor, on
  914
  observing a loss of weight, advised his release.

  IMPRISONMENT OF MR. CONYBEARE.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask whether Mr. Conybeare was sentenced yesterday to be deprived for a week of all newspapers, and, if so, on what ground, having regard to the fact that the Irish Estimates are now being discussed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know nothing about the subject of this question, nor can I for a moment see what relevancy the Irish Estimates can have to the sentence alleged to have been passed.

  PROGRESS OF BUSINESS.
  MR. W. M. MURPHY: May I ask when the Vote for the Dublin Metropolitan Police will be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We are now taking the Magistrates' Vote out of its order in deference to the wish of the Irish Members. We propose, however, to take the rest of the Votes in their order.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Is it intended to take the second Order to-night—the Infectious Diseases Notification Bill?
  MR. RITCHIE: I should be glad to take it to-night if the Irish Estimates are finished before 12 o'clock.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: When the Government bring in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, do they intend to include in it the first section—the Leaseholder's Section—of the Act of 1887, so as to give leaseholders a little additional time to go into Court?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; it will be included.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Will the Tithe Rent charge Bill be taken on Monday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes; and we hope to be able to make considerable progress with it. I think I may now refer to the notice I gave last evening with reference to a Saturday sitting. I was under the impression that hon. Members would gladly avail themselves of the opportunity to shorten the Session by a Saturday sitting; but information has been communicated to me from various parts of the House, and

  915
  especially from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, that a Saturday sitting would be extremely disagreeable to them. Under these circumstances, I do not wish to occupy time by discussion, and will therefore not proceed with the notice which stands in my name. In taking this course I hope I may appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House to make such reasonable progress with the business as will afford a chance to hon. Members, who, I believe, are generally desirous of returning to the country as early as possible. Of course it is the duty of the Government to remain as long as it may be necessary; but I believe there are very many hon. Gentlemen who would be exceedingly glad to see the end of the Session, and I appeal with confidence to hon. Gentlemen not to prolong discussion beyond what is reasonable and necessary.
  MR. CHANNING: Will the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill be the First Order of the Day on Monday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Substantially, the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill will be the First Order on Monday.
  MR. COSSHAM: I would ask whether pressing forward the Tithes Bill is not contrary to the statement the right hon. Gentleman has just made, that he desires to save the time of the House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already stated that the Government feel themselves compelled to take the judgment of the House on this Bill.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Does the Secretary to the Treasury intend to proceed to-night with the London County Council (Money) Bill?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes. I do not think there is any opposition to it.

  INDIAN TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India recognises the preferential claim of officers who have served a great number of years in the Indian Telegraph Department, and who have entered that Department in its lower grades, to the higher offices in the Department as they fall vacant?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST, : In making promotions in the Telegraph Service the Government of India have regard, first, to personal fitness, and, secondly, to length of service.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what is the total amount of the pensions now payable in England to members of the Indian Telegraph Department; and what would be the extra cost if those pensions were paid in sterling?
  SIR J. GORST: The amount is Rs. 89,758 11 annas. The extra cost of paying in sterling would be £2,804 19s. 4d., at the present official rate of exchange.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act for further promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing superfluous expressions of enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary." [Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords.]
  That they have agreed to Settled Land Acts Amendment Bill, Companies Clauses Consolidation Act (1888) Amendment Bill; Amendments to Marriages (Basutoland, &c.) Bill [Lords], Court of Session and Bill Chamber (Scotland) Clerks Bill.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [LORDS.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 371.]
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Cruelty to Children Prevention Bill, now Prevention of Cruelty to, and Protection of, Children Bill; Local Government (Scotland) Bill, with Amendments.
  LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS.]
  Lords Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Commons, and Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendments, and Consequential Amendment to the Bill, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 370.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS III.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £84,062, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses and Pensions of various County Court Officers, of Divisional Commissioners and Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: It might perhaps be in accordance with the wishes of the House that I should make a short explanation, almost in the nature of a personal explanation, with regard to an episode which occurred in the course of my speech last night on this Vote. It will be recollected that one of the subjects that came up for discussion was the conduct of Mr. Cecil Roche and Colonel Turner in declining to subscribe to the Kerry Hunt, and I stated that one of the reasons which I understood to influence these gentlemen was that they were of opinion that the attacks made upon them in the newspaper of an hon. Member who was on the committee of that hunt were of such a kind as to make it impossible for them to continue their connection with the hunt any longer. I read out certain phrases which I had understood afforded some of the grounds on which these two gentlemen had come to their decision. The hon. Member referred to appeared to dispute the general accuracy of the phrases, and I have done my best since then—I have not had much time—to discover how far the view which I understand to be the view of Mr. Cecil Roche and Colonel Turner, is absolutely justified by the contents of the newspaper in question—the Kerry Sentinel. The Kerry Sentinel is in the habit of giving publicity to the resolutions of various branches of the Land League in that part of Ireland——
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman proposes to justify the opinion of the Magistrates by citations from a newspaper. I think that is in-
    918
    troducing a new element into the Debate foreign to the question.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the point of order, Sir, may I point out this to you? The contention of the two gentlemen in question, Mr. Cecil Roche and Colonel Turner, whose conduct was publicly called attention to in the House, was based on certain expressions which they said, or thought, were used in the Kerry Sentinel. The reply made was that these expressions were not used in the newspaper; therefore, I would ask you, Mr. Courtney, whether it would not be relevant to the Debate to point out that, as a matter of fact, absolutely equivalent expressions have been so used?
    THE CHAIRMAN: That would be wandering into an entirely new controversy. The only question is as to the accuracy of the representation of the views entertained by those two Magistrates. As to going into a justification of the views, I do not think that would be regular.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I do not wish to press the point; but I would ask, is not the accuracy of the representation dependent upon the fact that those quotations did occur in the newspaper in question? If they did occur, the representation of the views of the Magistrates would be correct; if they did not occur, it would be incorrect. In that way would not this matter be relevant?
    THE CHAIRMAN: No, I think not. The point raised last night was, the justification of the right hon. Gentleman in making his statement in which he represented the views of the Magistrates. The point is the justification of the right hon. Gentleman, not of the Magistrates who held these views.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Courtney, the Magistrates were attacked.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Not in relation to this.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then may I not justify myself?
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman proposes to adopt the language last night as representing the views of the Magistrate and wishes to make that language his own, he will in that case be justified in going into this evidence. But I would strongly deprecate such a course as fatal to the conduct of business.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the face of your strongly-expressed opinion, Sir, I shall abstain from going into the matter further.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER: On the point of order, may I ask, Mr. Courtney, whether the right hon. Gentleman would be entitled to reply to a question on the subject of the language actually used?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order is generally preserved by paying deference to the wishes of the Chair, and the right hon. Gentleman has elected to do that.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: I should be very happy, indeed, if you saw your way to afford the Chief Secretary the facility he desires. The charge last night was that I in my paper did use that language, and I call upon the right hon. Gentleman to substantiate it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is not quite what was said last night. But I appeal to both sides of the House after the expression of opinion that has fallen from the Chair to let this digression cease.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I will pass over the incident of last night, merely remarking that the Chief Secretary, through his secretary or his secretary's secretary, may easily manage by letters to the newspapers to fully explain his position. The matter upon which I first wish to ask a question is strictly relevant to this Vote, and has reference to the action of the Government in regard to Resident Magistrates. These Resident Magistrates are allowed not merely to practice in a particular Petty Sessions district, they are armed with powers to sit in various counties through out Ireland. About four months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a distinct pledge that a Paper would be laid upon the Table explaining the position of the Divisional Commissioners. I had never seen any Paper explaining under what circumstances these gentlemen were placed in their new position. They started as ordinary Resident Magistrates, and remained so until Mr. Forster issued what was called his "satrap circular" making them Divisional Magistrates, dividing Ireland into six, and placing one man over each Division. It will be remembered that the Auditor General stigmatised the proceeding as "grossly illegal," and it was the subject of discussion during the whole of a
    920
    night in this House. It shows extraordinary elasticity and suppleness in the law that when Government cannot get the salaries of these gentlemen as Divisional Magistrates, they can elude the Auditor General by turning them into Divisional Commissioners. The Lord Lieutenant shifts the slide, the Lord Chancellor turns on his limelight, and these gentlemen blaze forth as Divisional Commissioners with judicial functions in 12 counties. Then I come to the Resident Magistrates, and first to Mr. Cecil Roche, of whom I wish to speak with the utmost respect due to him personally, and to his office, or as I may say offices. Mr. Cecil Roche began official life as a Land Commissioner, and in that capacity it may be remembered how he punished Lord Annaly by cutting down his rents. Mr. Cecil Roche had a quarrel with Lord Annaly, and that nobleman got it hot and heavy from Mr. Cecil Roche. To use a common expression, he "wired into" Lord Annaly with equal energy to that he has since displayed against my hon. Friend and the Nationalists of Kerry. For private reasons, into which I will not enter, Mr. Cecil Roche left the position of Land Commissioner and became a Resident Magistrate. As a Land Commissioner he had £1,000 a year and expenses. How it was that he was compelled or induced to become a Resident Magistrate with £450 a year I will not now inquire into. He was appointed to Kerry, and there he carried out the views of the Government so well that they increased his salary and jurisdiction. They made him a Magistrate of the County of Clare. Now the practice of these gentlemen is to travel from one Licensing Sessions to another, and whenever a Nationalist publican applies for a renewal of his license in Clare, Mr. Cecil Roche sails up from County Kerry, and takes his seat on the Bench to secure the refusal of the license. And this brings me to the case of Mr. James Byrne and the manner in which he has been treated. How can the Lord Chancellor defend his action with respect to Mr. James Byrne, a tenant-farmer in the neighbourhood of Mallow and a Justice of the Peace? Mr. Byrne is a moderate politician, but he was an old member of the Tenants' Defence League ten or more years ago. It happened that at the Sessions at

    921
    Fermoy, which is 10 miles from Mallow, where Mr. Byrne resided, there was a case in which the police were charged with having batoned the people. Mr. Byrne came up from Mallow, and sat on the Bench during the trial, and for thus sitting outside his district Mr. Byrne's name was removed from the Commission of the Peace. At the same time Mr. Eaton, R.M., was brought from Mitchelstown, a distance of 15 miles. It was all right for him to come, and he was paid for it, but because the unpaid Magistrate came a lesser distance he was dismissed from the Commission. This I say is a scandalous exercise of the authority of the Lord Chancellor. How does the law stand as laid down in a case decided as recently as two years ago? The action of the Lord Chancellor is in absolute opposition to the law laid down in England in the case of "The Queen v. Bickley," in which the Queen's Bench, upholding the decision of Quarter Sessions, held that a Magistrate's jurisdiction extends to the whole county, and is not confined to his own Petty Sessional district. Such is the decision of Lord Coleridge and Baron Pollock. Why, then, was Mr. Bryne dismissed?
    THE CHAIRMAN: This is a point that does not arise under the Vote.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The point I wish to raise is the difference of treatment of Mr. Eaton and Mr. Byrne.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The action of a Resident Magistrate in acting outside his district is another point; the hon. Member was going beyond that.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: What I urge is that the treatment applied to Mr. Byrne should be equally applied to Mr. Eaton, and all the rest of the noble army. Why is that which is forbidden to Mr. James Byrne conceded to Resident Magistrates in whom nobody has any confidence, and some of whom are in a hopelessly insolvent condition and figure in the pages of Stubbs' Gazette? Many of these gentlemen I allude to are allowed to go about from one district to another, now acting as Resident Magistrates, now, like Mr. Cecil Roche, leading a baton charge of the police, and continuing at Licensing Sessions to deprive Nationalists of licenses. Why should these men be allowed to pack the Bench on such occasions? Why is Captain
    922
    Stack, of whom, personally, I say nothing, allowed to exercise jurisdiction over 12 counties? From experience we have had of their conduct, I verily believe that many of these Magistrates would, instead of the plank bed and six months' hard labour, be willing to have the penal laws re-enacted. I am sure that Mr. Cecil Roche would gladly set up a triangle for the purpose of inflicting 100 lashes with his own hand on my hon. Friend the Member for West Kerry. Still, these men have their uses, and when Home Rule is established they may be sent to Belfast, where Inspector Kerr, after being prosecuted for breaking Nationalists' heads, had his own head broken by the Orange rioters. One of these Magistrates, Mr. Hamilton, during the Home Rule Debates, expressed the willingness of himself and his colleagues to serve a National Parliament with as much zeal as they now serve the Tory Government. No doubt they would. Mr. Roche and Mr. Hamilton would do a good deal for £600 a year. Well, if the civil war breaks out as predicted by the military Member for Belfast, these gentlemen may be placed in the forefront of the battle, and display their zeal for law and order. Meantime, I am anxious that Irishmen under this administration and the next should have an equal administration of the law. Among the appointments I find the name of Mr. Bruen, and I ask what are the special qualifications he possesses for the Magistracy? He is the son of a Privy Councillor and of a former Member of this House, and I believe he has shown some skill in cricket. We have the "demon bowler" put on the Bench, and I would suggest that the "demon bowler" should be kept within something like reasonable limits. The other Magistrate who sat with the "demon bowler" was Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald. He, I see, figures in the book of biography—a kind of Magisterial Dodd, I think the Chief Secretary called it yesterday. His qualifications are those of an officer in India. Poor Mr. Fitzgerald. I understand that the heat has a great effect on a certain class of officers in India, and Mr. Fitzgerald, I am informed, has become, what is called in Indian slang, a "gonner," from sunstroke or the heat of the weather. So Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald was sent

    923
    home from India a "gonner," and having some influence at Dublin Castle, this "gonner" and this "demon bowler" are set up as a tribunal to try Members of Parliament. What is the record of this Mr. Vesey during his operations under the Crimes Act? I first heard of him in the Clongurry prosecution, in which he expelled from the Court my hon. Friend the Member for Wexford, who had the misfortune to appear for the defence. I next heard of him in a casein which he expelled Mr. Stephen Brown, a man of high character, great business capacity, and known for his amiable and mild manners. I challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman to deny my propositions, and nobody knows Mr. Stephen Brown better than does the hon. and learned Gentleman. Having got rid of the barrister, the hon. Member for Wexford, Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, next gets rid of the solicitor, Mr. Stephen Brown, by expelling him from the Court. I say that was a monstrous exercise of power. But that did not suffice him. One of the defendants, Mr. Hurley, who was tried with seven or eight other men, was expelled for contempt of Court. He expelled the barrister and the solicitor, and then began upon the prisoners. Mr. Hurley was committed for a week, and, just as in the Special Commission the Court would adjourn for ten minutes, he would adjourn for ten days, and commit these men for contempt of Court. He sent all these eight or ten men to gaol for seven days for contempt of Court. Week after week and week after week he sent them to gaol, and then, as a grand finale and wind-up, he gave them three months' imprisonment. Why, it is worse than the Special Commission—it is more than a farce. How can you expect respect for the law or for the Magistrates when your Act of Parliament is administered in this way. In the troubles of 1818, a military officer was appointed with a barrister to sit with him as assistant. It was like the mixed Commission we have heard of in other countries. If they differed, nothing was done. You were far better off than now. Throw all forms to the winds; get rid of the horrid system of compelling men to answer summonses. Have out a platoon of soldiers, and stick the Union Jack in the middle of them; get rid of your handcuffs and your plank beds; get rid
    924
    of this system of Magistrates whose legal knowledge to every man in this House, barring the Chief Secretary and the Chief Secretary's two secretaries, is the greatest farce. Talk of law and justice to these men! You might as well talk of chastity in a brothel. Take the most recent case, that of Dr. Tanner. The warrant on which Dr. Tanner was committed for contempt was nearly a yard long. It would have taken a skilful scrivener nearly a quarter of an hour to write out, and it would have taken a draftsman like Mr. Chitty about an hour and a-half to compose it. But these Justices—the "gonner" and the "demon bowler"—said, "We will retire for 20 minutes," and at the end of that time they came out with two warrants—one for Dr. Tanner's committal for a month, which was not very long, and a long warrant for his committal for contempt. And all in 20 minutes! The Attorney General said before Baron Dowse that the warrant was very carefully drawn. I wonder whether these contempt warrants are supplied at so much a dozen from Dublin Castle. Baron Dowse said, "No doubt, it looks as if they came with their ammunition ready." I congratulate Baron Dowse on being a Judge of the High Court, and not subject to the "gonners" or "the demon bowlers," because that is exactly what Dr. Tanner got three months for. He did not use that elegant periphrasis, but he said that "You have your sentence in your pocket." It would tax the fine intellectual capacity of the Resident Magistrates to distinguish between the two phrases. I would recommend you to repeal this Act of Parliament and substitute the mere lettres de cachet, the issuing of warrants without process, in order that you might enjoy the luxury of shaving the beards of Members and colleagues in this House, putting them on plank beds, and dieting them on brown bread. To ask us to respect a law which is so administered is absurd. The Chief Secretary said yesterday—and I think on the comic stage he would have made a larger salary than he does from his office, even with the coals thrown in—in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for West Kerry; "Why did he not appeal?" How often have these appeals been taken, and how often have they been reversed? Dr. Tanner

    925
    refused to give bail to be of good behaviour. And English. Gentlemen go to their constituents and ask, "Why did he not appeal?" But they will not tell their constituents, or the Government will not inform them, that the Queen's Bench decided that in Ireland there is no appeal in such cases. I raised the point, and it was decided in the very case of Hurley. A copy of that judgment was circulated amongst the Resident Magistrates. There is no appeal in any of these cases; yet the Chief Secretary, on the 17th May, 1887, said:—
    "We will give you an appeal in all cases, and if in this dangerous and technical law of conspiracy an appeal is even denied from the County Court Judges, we will give it. The drafting of the Act has been framed too slavishly on Lord Spencer's Act; we will depart from the slavery; we will put Lord Spencer behind us, and we now give you an appeal in all cases."
    We know how that promise was kept. We know how the Members for West Ham and Peckham wrote to the Times, and how it was said, "What are wanted are short, sharp sentences to strike terror; we want no appeals;" and the Chief Secretary gracefully yielded to the instructions of the hon. Members. If that were the law practiced at the Old Bailey, I would like to know how the two Members would face the "gonner" from India and the "demon bowler," or what chance the prisoners would have before gentlemen like Mr. Cecil Roche. Of course, in this country it is quite right that the law should be administered; and even when a verdict of guilty is given the newspapers may take it up; they are English, and belong to people of your own blood; and the whole matter may be revived. But in the case of men like the Member for West Kerry or Dr. Tanner, or the Member for North-East Cork, what are wanted are "short, sharp sentences." You have provided under the Act of Edward III. a law by which Resident Magistrates are not confined to the infliction of three or six months' imprisonment, but they may, if they choose, give three or six years, and they may do that without appeal. They can send you to gaol under Edward III. as under Balfour I. Then there is the fact that you may give a month's sentence without any appeal whatever; that you may give two sentences of one month to run consecutively, as was done in the case of
    926
    Mr. Alderman Hooper, late a Member of this House, and as was done in the case of several other Members of the House. Under Jervis's Act you cannot put two charges in one summons against a man; you can only make one charge against him; but under the Irish Petty Sessions Act you may bring 900 charges. It will be said that there are cases in which appeals can be taken. There are. I will give you an instance, Mr. Courtney. In the case of the Clongurry prosecution the men first of all were sentenced under the Crimes Act, and tacked on to that was the sentence of imprisonment under Edward III. Under Edward III. they had no appeal whatever. Under the Crimes Act sentence who were they to appeal to? They had the felicity of living in a county where the County Court Judge was Judge Gardner, who has laid down that he will never interfere with or revise the sentence of any Resident Magistrate unless some new fact is brought forward. What new facts can there be? Therefore, what would be the good of appealing to a man like that? My hon. Friend (Mr. E. Harrington), it is said, would have appealed to County Court Judge Curran, and it is observed that the County Court Judges are not removable or promovable at the will of the Irish Executive. There were circumstances which prevented the appeal. Had there been an appeal I have no doubt the sentence would have been reduced, there would have been no hard labour, and practically the Judge would have wiped out the sentence, leaving only the sentence of a month. My hon. Friend made no appeal. Why? For a reason entirely creditable to him, and which I have no hesitation in mentioning My hon. Friend is editor of the local paper in the county in which Judge Curran sits; and he has constantly to criticise the action of the County Court Judge in relation to land cases, fair rent cases, processes, and the administration of the law generally. He has taken up the attitude of fair criticism towards him, and County Court Judge Curran I am aware does not resent that in the slightest. But my hon. Friend would not appeal to any man whose judicial action would come under his own review as a newspaper man and a journalist. The other reason why he did not appeal

    927
    was this: He applied to Mr. Cecil Roche to state a case. Now, the Chief Secretary knows that if you omit to get a case stated your right of appeal is gone. Mr. Cecil Roche refused to state a case, and therefore his only resource was to try habeas corpus, and he very nearly succeeded on the technical point. And that is the explanation of the action of my hon. Friend. But are these County Court Judges removable and promovable? I am sure they are just as removable and promovable as the Resident Magistrates. What was the meaning of the County Court Judge Curran's promotion? He was first appointed a Police Magistrate in Dublin. For his services in connection with the Park investigations he was made a County Court Judge in King's County. Then when the present President of the Board of Trade wanted somebody to join General Butler in the County Kerry he was sent there by Lord Salisbury, who thought he had in him a suitable instrument. Have I shown whether the County Court Judge is independent of the executive or not? Then there is County Court Judge Henn, who confirmed the sentence on Mr. Wilfred Blunt. Is he independent of the executive or not? He has a son who is a Resident Magistrate. Is he going to throw dirt and discredit upon the decisions of Resident Magistrates by revising their sentences or quashing their convictions, when his own son is dependent for favour and promotion upon the paymasters of the Resident Magistrates? I assert, as a matter of fact, that with two or three exceptions, all over Ireland these County Court Judges are as sensible to the thermometer at Dublin Castle as the Resident Magistrates themselves. There are some counties in Ireland where the County Court Judge is an independent officer. Take Waterford. The House perhaps recollects Mr. Pine, who was a Member of this House. He is the son of a Protestant rector in Essex. He went over to fight the Duke of Devonshire in the County of Waterford, and the noble Duke got him lodged in Clonmel Gaol as a suspect, and kept there for several months. He was elected a Member of Parliament by the Catholic people of that county. Mr. Pine was prosecuted on two charges; for one he got a month, and
    928
    for the other two or three months. He got three months on one charge, and while he is waiting the appeal during a month or six weeks, they gave him a month on the other charge to show there was no ill-feeling. He was brought up to Court in his prison clothes. The Chief Secretary made a great point of my hon. Friend the Member for Kerry appearing at his brother's trial in his prison clothes. But he was dragged before his constituents in garments that certainly would not do credit to Poole, to put it very tenderly. Mr. Pine was brought up in the same way to the City of Waterford. Observe, he was an Englishman, with pure blood of the Saxon flowing through his veins. Of course, we cannot expect any sympathy for Irish Members of Parliament. But he is one of your own who was brought up. I took a point on the summons, afterwards held to be good by the Superior Courts in Dublin, because Mr. William O'Brien got out upon it. The County Court Judge quashed the conviction. From that day to this, Mr. Courtney, no sentence of more than one month has been given in the County of Waterford. There may have been one, but I think I am right in my statement. The County Court Judge (Mr. George Waters) does not pretend to be a Nationalist; he was Member at one time for Mallow; and I think he must have been a County Court Judge for nearly 20 years. He is one of the most respected of the Judges; he is a man of great tenderness of heart; there is considerable precision in his decisions; he is an honest and independent man. Because he has nothing to expect from you, you will not allow your decisions to go before him. I read the other day that the rioters in the City of Waterford deserved much more than a month's imprisonment. The riot was provoked by the police, if it could be called a riot. They could have given these men six months each for the riot. Did they? No. Why? Because there would have been an appeal to Judge Waters. They returned them for trial before a special jury in Queen's County; they changed the venue—a most improper thing to do in a case of the kind. They would trust nobody in Waterford; they trusted only to the Crimes Act. As to County Court Judge Webb, in the City of Dublin, I

    929
    will not say anything, because, since the Member for West Birmingham has declared that the practice to which I have referred is more honoured in the breach than the observance, the gospel according to Joseph has been taken to heart by the Resident Magistrates. And I would observe that one hint from the noble Marquess or the Member for West Birmingham would be worth all the law in Coke upon Lyttelton. I believe they would not disdain advice even from the Member for South Tyrone, who, since his recent action, may have fallen in their estimation, but who may be regarded as a suitable conduit-pipe for the wise counsels which proceed from Devonshire House. I say these Gentlemen could do a great deal of good by a word to such men as Cecil Roche. A respectable Tory on that side of the House was introduced to Mr. Cecil Roche, and he said, "Well, Mr. Roche, I have often been anxious to see you, because you have done our Party more mischief than any man in Ireland." I do, therefore, entreat English gentlemen to address a few words of remonstrance to these men, even if it is only in a private letter. They have only to say they are Tory or Liberal Unionists, when they see a man getting three months for winking at a policeman, and they will exert a salutary influence. Roche sentenced Mr. Woolstack for waving his hat for Mr. Wm. O'Brien. Mr. Woolstack gave bail, it is true; but did not Baron Dowse yesterday declare that in such cases nothing would induce him to give bail. That statement coming from a judge whom everybody respects, will have a powerful effect throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. I appeal to English gentlemen, when they see the law being so administered, to hint that it does not help the policy of Her Majesty's Government to hold up these object lessons in law for the advantage of Irish Members, and to the detriment of the Tory Party throughout England. In that way English gentlemen could do a good deal for the Tory policy. I need not comment upon Mr. Roche, for, after the promises held out to him of promotion under the next administration, I hope when I again have the misfortune to appear before him I may be allowed to get out two sentences without being expelled from
    930
    the Court, so amenable are these men to reason. I have, however, entered my protest against the course the Government are taking, for they are taking it with no other view except the exasperation of the people. Two great Acts of Parliament have been passed, we are told, by Her Majesty's Government—the Crimes Act and the Land Act. One works very smoothly, there are no exceptions from it. There are no demesne lands, no town parks, no residential holdings exempted. There is the plank bed. There are no exceptions in the course of the Crimes Act; it applies to everybody, it falls upon the just and the unjust. One Act works smoothly down an incline, the other drags wearily uphill, and the people get access to the land or remedial courts with the greatest difficulty. Something like decency is attempted to be preserved in the one case; but in the other half-pay officers, broken down Anglo-Indians, briefless barristers and experienced cricketers are sufficient to destroy the liberties of the people. Why, even at Jamaica, even at the Cape, even in the islands of Malta and Cyprus, and even in places where the British Government have Crown Colonies, you do attempt to give some satisfaction to the subject races. But here, in an integral part of the Empire, an island which we are told is the brightest jewel in the Crown of Her Most Gracious Majesty, and from among whose people have come some of the most valiant sailors and ablest soldiers of that Monarch, you find that 28 of the Parliamentary representatives of those people have been sent to gaol. Yet you would not part with us for the whole world. The Liberal party is rent in twain when it is proposed to withdraw the Irish Members from the House of Commons and to send them to a native Parliament. But they may be withdrawn in dozens to send them to the plank bed. It is only sending them to College Green that is objected to. You may send them to Kilmainham and Tuilamore as long as you like, and they are not missed. I must say that statesmen who trust to this mode of cementing the unity of the Empire, who think that they will thus best carry out their1 wretched policy with any success, are under a most miserable and lamentable delusion. But I do not

    931
    believe that it is even a delusion. I believe the Chief Secretary is far too clever a man to nurse or hug any delusion of that kind. His position is this, as I apprehend. He is like Prometheus: he is chained to his post. His friends will not allow him to leave. They say—"You have been such a success in the Irish Office." He wants to be somewhere else; he would like to have some other work than that of promoting Resident Magistrates, and looking after the interests of the Irish landlords in Gweedore and elsewhere; but he has been so great a success that he cannot be spared; and having entered upon this false and foolish policy he is bound to see it to its end. His predecessor was wiser: he got out in time. He knew what was coming. While I admire the courage and ability of the right hon. Gentleman in carrying out the Coercion Act in the way he is doing, I cannot but think that he is only actuated by a false and foolish pride. It is to my mind a miserable thing that the two nations should thus be kept divided, and that our nation should be crucified—not between two thieves, but among seventy-two of them—for I believe there are 72 Resident Magistrates operating from one end of the country to the other. I say it is a miserable thing if this state of things is to be allowed to continue, and that if you are reasonable men you will appoint Magistrates of character and substance, who will administer the law with discretion, who will examine into the state of the people and do something for them that will be better than sending them to a plank bed. We have had announcements made that never was there a period of greater prosperity in Ireland than now; that never were there more amicable relations between the Resident Magistrates and the people than those which exist at the present moment. Does any one believe this? Do we believe it? And we, after all, are the best judges. If our country were only content, should we not be delighted? What have we to gain by a contrary course? I put it to you whether the fact that the representatives of five sixths of the Irish people are against the present system of administration ought to count for something; and in view of all the follies and mistakes these Magistrates have made I ask you why
    932
    can you not begin a new life, and do something to earn the gratitude of a people over whom you now insist on ruling?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: When the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) condescended from the region of general denunciation of the follies and mistakes of the Resident Magistrates, and from the sallies with which he has diverted the Committee, and came to the regions of fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman was not, I think, very happy in the illustrations he employed in order to enforce his general accusations. He has spoken of the qualifications of these Magistrates, and asked who are they? He also drew a picture of a Court composed of two Resident Magistrates, one of whom he described as a "Demon Bowler," and of another, whom he alluded to as a retired Indian Official; but I would point out that the very case which had been decided by this Demon Bowler and the retired Indian Official was discussed in this House, when three learned Gentlemen, Members of this House, undertook to lay before us their version of the law upon the subject. The three hon. and learned Gentlemen who undertook to give their opinions on the legality of the sentence of the Court referred to and criticised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford were men of whose legal competence the Lord Lieutenant might fairly have been satisfied. They were the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Western Division of Durham, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockton, who was formerly Solicitor General; and they all took the same view of the law, and pronounced against the legality of the decision of the Resident Magistrates in ordering the Member for Mid Cork to find securities of good behaviour. But when I look at what took place before the Court of Exchequer, I find that that Court decided that the action of the Magistrates was perfectly legal, and that those learned Gentlemen were wrong. This, I think, is a very significant fact; and an incident of this kind brought home to the Committee is worth a good deal of denunciation. I can

    933
    hardly suppose that the three hon. and learned Gentlemen to whom I have referred came down to enlighten this House upon that case without having looked into the law on the subject, or for the mere purpose of making an attack on their political opponents. I do not believe it; and it only serves to show the enormous room there is for differences of opinion on questions of this kind. Now, when we are told to look at the qualifications of the Magistrates I would wish the Committee to turn to see the extent to which their decisions have been questioned; and what do we find? for this, I say, is the broad and proper way of looking at the question. Whether this or that man acquired his experience or legal knowledge by study and practice as a barrister, or by practical experience as a Magistrate, is not the point; the question is, whether the magistrates have acquired legal knowledge and experience sufficient to enable them to discharge their duties in a satisfactory manner. I say, therefore, that when you find it recorded that there are only 9 per cent. of successful appeals against their decisions, and when you find in the case of the hon. Member for Mid-Cork that only on one point, and that a purely technical one, was the order of the Magistrates reversed, the ground being that one Magistrate had not the power to adjourn the hearing, I do not think a case can be made out against the Magistrates by discussing their antecedent qualifications for office. We are not now discussing the Crimes Act, but the allegation that the Government have worked that Act by improper means and by the employment of inefficient and incompetent men. Well, how are we to bring charges of this nature to the test? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford has said there is no appeal in certain cases, but I say that there is, under the Crimes Act, the same appeal as in cases under the ordinary law in Ireland. Where points of law are involved there are means of having any questions decided by the Superior Courts. Now, I ask the Committee to look at the results. It seems to me that the most conclusive answer to the accusations of incompetency brought against these gentlemen is the fact that so remarkably small a number of appeals against
    934
    their decisions should have been successful. It has been found that the decisions of these Magistrates, whom the Committee are asked to condemn as a class, have on the whole, with a remarkably small number of exceptions, been upheld, whether by the County Courts on appeal or by the Superior Courts. But the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford has asked the Committee to believe that the appeals which go before the County Court Judges are not fairly heard. We have been told that a certain Judge has a son who is a Resident Magistrate. Now, I put it to the Committee, is that a serious way of dealing with such a question? And, again, I ask the Committee to look at the broad facts. What is the position of the 22 or 23 men who are County Court Judges in Ireland? Who are they, how are they appointed, and what is their tenure of office? I challenge any one to say that, as a body, they do not fairly represent the practising Bar of Ireland—I do not say those very first flights; but they are men who have all won their way to their present position by sheer merit. When we are told that one of these gentlemen has a son who is a Resident Magistrate, I ask whether that can be regarded as a serious criticism of such a body? Can it, for one moment, be considered a ground on which we are to discuss the action of the two, or three and twenty Irish County Court Judges? And here I hope the Committee will not, for one moment, understand me to suggest that it is a ground which ought to be put forward even against the individual Judge to whom reference has been made. Well, I have shown what is the class of men of whom the County Court Judges of Ireland are composed; and when I say that their tenure of office is such as to render them absolutely independent of the Executive, I think I have placed the position they hold in a light which the Committee will be able to appreciate. Complaint has been made, and an explanation demanded, of the statement made by a certain County Court Judge to this effect, as it is suggested, that he would not entertain appeals in Crimes Act cases. Now I have had that statement before me, and I deny it is of the nature which has been suggested by the hon. Member.

    935
    I have been asked to explain the position of Divisional Magistrates under the new rules. The action of the Government with reference to the substitution of Divisional Commissioners for Divisional Magistrates has been very simple. Divisional Magistrates are not Magistrates in the sense of acting judicially; they are always Executive officers, and I think that the name was an unfortunate one. This class of appointment was first made, I believe, in 1882, in the time of the late Mr. Forster. Those gentlemen who were appointed Resident Magistrates under an Act of Parliament had a fixed salary, and as long as they held that appointment it was held—and rightly held—by the Committee of Accounts, that the only salary they could draw was the statutory salary of a Resident Magistrate; but it was never doubted that the Government could appoint Executive officers, and so instead of being appointed Resident Magistrates they are now appointed Executive officers, with a fixed salary, and that salary will have to be voted by Parliament. Reference has been also made to the fact of these Magistrates being put upon the Commission of the Peace to enable them to discharge the duties of their office. That is by no means an unusual proceeding, and as to its legality and conformity with precedent, I do not think that there can be any doubt. The point has been raised that it is allowable for Resident Magistrates to reside in a different Petty Sessions district from that in which they act, whereas ordinary Justices of the Peace must not habitually reside out of their own district. The cases, however, are totally different. Resident Magistrates are paid for going round to assist the ordinary J.P.'s in carrying out the law; that is the purpose for which they are appointed. They are to be experts and competent practised Judges, to discharge duties in various Petty Sessions districts, and not confine themselves to one district as an ordinary Magistrate, but go on service as they are required from one district to another. Do hon. Members opposite by their ironical cheers mean to suggest that this statement is inaccurate, and that it is the duty of a Resident Magistrate to adhere to a single Petty Sessions district during his tenure of office? Such a contention would be absurd. Reference has been
    936
    made to a recent decision with regard to the power of a Justice of the Peace; but that decision has no bearing upon the subject now under discussion. It merely amounts to this—that the Commission of the Peace gives jurisdiction in every part of the country; for my own part, I only wonder that such a proposition has ever been seriously doubted. With regard to the occurrence at Naas where it is stated that the Magistrate turned the counsel in a case out of Court, I have the report of what occurred on that occasion, and I find that the learned counsel in the case used language which the Court regarded as improper. He said the conduct of the Bench in regard to the cross-examination of a witness was a scandal. The Resident Magistrate, Mr. Fitzgerald, asked him to withdraw the expression. He refused to withdraw it, and said that he had used it deliberately, and the Court refused to hear him unless he withdrew it. The learned counsel had spoken of scandalous conduct——
    MR. J. REDMOND: That is not a true report of what I said; it is substantially accurate as far as it goes; but without a full report the matter cannot be fairly judged. I will supply the hon. and learned Gentleman with a report of the exact language which I used.
    MR. MADDEN: I should be very glad if the hon. and learned Member would correct me if the report before me is inaccurate; but I am bound to deal with the question as it has been brought forward. No explanation, however, can remove the fact that on being called upon to withdraw his language the hon. and learned Gentleman refused to do so, and said that he had used it deliberately. If an incident of that kind had occurred in any Court, high or low, in England, and counsel had used words similar to those which the hon. Member admits to be substantially correct, I think that precisely similar action would have been taken. With regard to the solicitor, I am informed that at a later period he addressed the Court, and dared the Magistrate to put him out.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: That is a most inaccurate report.
    MR. MADDEN: In the opinion of the Court the proceedings were systematically disturbed, and as a matter of

    937
    fact I am informed that Mr. Brown was not turned out.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: He was taken out by two policemen.
    MR. J. REDMOND: Does the Solicitor General derive his information from the newspaper reports, because they are entirely different from each other?
    MR. MADDEN: My information is derived from official sources, not from newspaper reports. As an instance of the recklessness with which assertions are made, it has been stated that Mr. Cecil Roche gave a sentence of six months' imprisonment to a person for waving his hat for Mr. O'Brien. As a matter of fact, Mr. Roche did not adjudicate on that occasion at all, and never gave the sentence; it was given by a different Magistrate altogether.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I have got the deposition of Mr. Cecil Roche, signed at the police barrack, stating what had occurred on that occasion.
    MR. MADDEN: The sentence attributed to Mr. Roche was not passed by Mr. Roche; it was passed by Captain Walsh; and that was rather an important fact when Mr. Roche is being attacked for that particular sentence. The hon. Member for Stockton asked me in this House upon what evidence Captain Walsh acted, and whether he had anything before him except the deposition of Mr. Roche; and the answer I gave was that Captain Walsh acted on the evidence of his own senses. A Magistrate in requiring securities for good behaviour is entitled to act upon his own knowledge of what is occurring in his presence, or, in other words, the evidence of his own senses. Mr. Stock did not go to gaol for an hour, because he gave sureties to be of good behaviour. These Magistrates perform their duties in the full light of day. "The fierce light that beats upon a throne" is darkness compared with the glare of publicity in which they discharge their duties. This I do not complain of, and the Government have no reason to complain of it. I am certain that the Resident Magistrates have no reason to complain of it. Is there a single act of the Resident Magistrates during the last two years that has not been carefully looked into? Looking at the whole record, looking at the proportion of suc-
    938
    cessful appeals, looking at the isolated cases that have been taken up, I believe the Committee will think that the Resident Magistrates have come out of the ordeal to which they have been subjected with every credit to themselves.
    MR. J. REDMOND: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to prove too much. Whatever else the Resident Magistrates may be they are not competent and practised Judges. It would have been more to the purpose to show that they were an average body of men who have been entrusted with functions of a very difficult character. Although there is reason to complain of the conduct of individuals, I cannot treat the question apart from the policy of the Coercion Act they are administering. No matter what body of men are employed to administer it, they cannot give satisfaction in carrying out its provisions. I object to the method in which the Magistrates are selected, to the method in which they are instructed and inspired, and to the manner in which they do their work. No men could satisfactorily discharge the duties of Judge and jury that are cast upon them. No law is more complex and difficult than the Law of Conspiracy; and one of the most competent Judges resigned rather than take upon himself the administration of that law without the assistance of a jury. Yet in administering that law the Resident Magistrates have to act as both Judge and jury. It is generally held that the liberty of the subject would not be worth a moment's purchase unless it were safeguarded by Judges independent of the Executive, and by juries indifferently chosen; but as Judges the Resident Magistrates are not independent of the Executive, and as jurymen they are not indifferently chosen. Coming to individuals, it is impossible to avoid giving expression to strong feelings of resentment at many things which have occurred. It is irrelevant to compare the qualifications of Members of Parliament with those of Resident Magistrates, as the Chief Secretary has done, because Members of Parliament have not to try charges of conspiracy. Recently I was interested in an intricate case of conspiracy tried by Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Macleod. Mr. Bodkin is said to have been, before his appointment, a civil engineer, a farmer,

    939
    and a Militia officer; and Mr. Macleod had been for some years a Constabulary officer, and these are the men supposed to be qualified to deal with a difficult question of law. It is monstrous that such enormous powers should be entrusted to men with these qualifications. A power committed to them is that of instituting secret inquiries, by examining witnesses in the presence of no one but a shorthand writer. Mr. Justice Stephen, in his history of the criminal law, deals with secret inquiries, and he says:—
    "The substitution of secret interrogation for an open investigation would appear to us to be poisoning justice at its source. An English Judge would feel himself degraded if he were required to extort admissions by elaborate cross-examination."
    Yet this is the system which is at work under this Crimes Act. In these secret inquiries no rules of evidence guide or fetter the discretion of the Magistrates. A secret inquiry was held recently in the County of Wexford, and presided over by a gentleman named Considine. He summoned people before him, and in secret questioned and cross-questioned them, so as to extort admissions from them. As to his qualifications for the exercise of legal functions at all, I find it stated that he served as High Sheriff in County Limerick in 1881, and that he kept all his terms for the Bar, but for family reasons was not called. The other day Mr. Considine admitted in evidence that years ago he kept all the summer terms at one of the English Inns, but never attended a lecture or attempted to pass an examination. It seems to me, therefore, that the description of this Magistrate is a dishonest one. Now, the Solicitor General's argument, that the charge of incompetence brought against the Magistrates is negatived by the number of appeals in which the convictions have been confirmed by the County Court Judges, was primâ facie, no doubt, a strong one. But when we look into the facts we can see what this confirmation is worth. One County Court Judge who has jurisdiction over three counties—I refer to Judge Darley—has declared that he will not interfere in any of these Crimes Act cases with the discretion of the Magistrates, unless he is satisfied they have made a mistake in point of law.
    940
    What did that mean? It meant that appeal, which by law should be a rehearing of a case, was absolutely taken away from every man who was within the jurisdiction of that County Court Judge. Take another instance. The Solicitor General was indignant at the suggestion that these County Court Judges could be anything but independent and impartial administrators of the law. I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to state whether he seriously considers that County Court Judge Webb is a gentleman entirely independent of the Executive Government. We know how County Court Judge Webb got his preferment. We know that Judge Webb was the pamphleteer for the Conservative Party in Dublin and was engaged in the preparation of articles for which he was paid by a certain political association, and which in another shape formed the origin of the Times' articles on "Parnellism and Crime." Although Judge Webb may have had at one time some practice, I deny that he ever had such legal professional work as to justify his appointment as County Court Judge. I say his promotion was the payment for the political service he did to the Party opposite. To ask us to have confidence in a gentleman of that kind is about as absurd as to ask us to have confidence in the legal knowledge of Mr. Cecil Roche and men like him. I hope the people will notice to-morrow that the Solicitor General thinks that Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald and Mr. Civil Engineer Bodkin are competent and practised Judges. One of the Judges of the Supreme Court—Mr. Baron Dowse—has said there are several things he has never been able to understand, and one of them is the mind of these local Justices or how they bring their mind to bear on a case. He was still less able to understand the state of mind of Justices of whose competence the Lord Lieutenant has been satisfied. In another case the learned Judge said one might as well ask one of these Justices to write a Greek Ode as to state a case themselves. In a case which was before the Courts yesterday the Attorney General said he was collecting into one volume, which he was about to have published, all the Judgments of the Superior Courts in these Crimes Act cases, and Mr. Baron Dowse said—

    941
    "If you wish that to be of any use you must collect all the Magistrates together and give them a good grind in it."
    These are the practised and competent Judges the learned Solicitor General said are quite fit to administer the law of conspiracy and other official powers vested in them by the Crimes Act. I notice there has been a recent development in the action of these Magistrates; they have recently taken to tacking on to their sentences under the Crimes Act further sentences in default of finding bail. I do not believe that when the Legislature limited the imprisonment to be inflicted to six months, it contemplated that it might be extended to nine or 12 months under an Act of Edward III. Had such a thing been thought possible, I believe that the House would have introduced a provision to prevent it. It is all very well to say that a man need not be imprisoned because he has only to give bail for good behaviour. The way that Irishmen look at that is shown by what Chief Baron Palles said the other day—namely, that if he were asked to give sureties for good behaviour, he would sooner die first. I should like to refer to an incident in which Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald took part; but before I come to the particular point let me say that there is only one barrister practising in Ireland who has succeeded in appearing before Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald without being turned out of Court, and, as far as I have been able to ascertain, there is not a single solicitor in the district, except the Crown Solicitors, who has not been removed from Court by this Magistrate's order. Some time ago I was engaged at the Winter Assizes in the town of Maryborough, where Lord Chief Justice Morris was trying cases. Some of the prisoners were defended and others were undefended, and I was greatly struck by what I saw and heard. If a prisoner was undefended the Judge allowed him in statement and in cross-examination the most enormous latitude. I left the Court and went into the Court of Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald. There were eight or ten defendants in the case in which I appeared, but I appeared for only one of them. The Magistrate did not interfere with my discretion, but the moment one of the undefended prisoners rose in his place in the dock and
    942
    commenced—perhaps incoherently, perhaps irrelevantly, but certainly not with any intention to be disrespectful to the Court—to cross-examine one of the witnesses, Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald at once interfered, and said, "You cannot ask that question," "That is irrelevant," "If that is the kind of question you have to ask, sit down; if you do not, I will order you to be dragged down by policemen." I turned to my solicitor and said, "This interference with the cross examination of witnesses by undefended prisoners is the most scandalous thing I ever saw." Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald's ears are somewhat long, and he caught my observation, although it was not addressed to him, and he asked me if I said that. I said I did. He asked me to withdraw it; but I, remembering what I had just seen in the Lord Chief Justice's Court, refused to withdraw the expression. For that offence I was ordered out of Court. My solicitor remained, and what occurred in his case was this: The Magistrate was writing down the depositions himself. Mr. Brown, the solicitor, complained that a certain answer was not correctly taken down. The Magistrate said, "Sit down, sir, and hold your tongue," and Mr. Brown answered, "I will not; I am discharging my duty to my client, and I insist upon that answer being taken down correctly." For that Mr. Brown was seized by two policemen and dragged out of Court. This is the kind of thing that is constantly occurring when cases are tried before Mr. Fitzgerald. Reference has been made to the fact that his action in the case of Dr. Tanner has been upheld. But it was reversed upon one point, which was a very simple one—namely, that a Court not properly constituted to hear a case could not adjourn it; and as to the second point, with regard to the holding to good behaviour or committing for three months for contempt of Court, it is a strange thing that the brilliant idea of falling back on his alternative jurisdiction under the Act of Edward III. should strike Mr. Fitzgerald—an ex-Civil servant of India—whereas it has never occurred to any of his colleagues, some of whom do possess some legal knowledge. Mr. Baron Dowse, in alluding to the warrant on which Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald

    943
    committed Dr. Tanner under the jurisdiction given by the Act of Edward III., said—
    "This is a very elaborate document;"
    and further on the learned Judge said—
    "Mr. Attorney General, it is so peculiar and so elaborate that it does seem to be some confirmation of Dr. Tanner's idea that these Magistrates came with their ammunition ready."
    I am free to express my opinion that Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald did not act on his own initiative in the matter, but that he was inspired by the legal advisers of the Government in Dublin Castle. The Chief Secretary denies that there is any fusion between the Executive and the Judicial functions of Magistrates; and he added that one of the reasons why Magistrates move about so frequently is that the Government desire that those who exercise Executive functions should not preside over Courts. But there are Judges in many parts of Ireland who are every day in the week combining Judicial and Executive functions. It is only the other day that I appeared before a certain Magistrate in a Crimes Act Court, and that within two hours of the close of the Court I witnessed the Magistrate leading a body of baton men in the dispersal of a meeting. Colonel Miller is constantly exercising both Judicial and Executive functions in my own county; therefore, it is not true for the Chief Secretary to say that the Executive and Judicial functions are kept distinct. The action of these Magistrates is going very far indeed to intensify the contempt in which the administration of the law is held in Ireland. The Irish people have got into their heads that what Erskine said long ago is true—namely, that where the administration of the law is left in the hands of the deputies of the Executive Government; there can be no liberty except such as is convenient to the Executive Government. Under present circumstances a sentence of imprisonment inflicted by one of these Courts is regarded not as a stigma, but as a title to honour. These Courts are not engaged in punishing crime, but in attempting to break down combination on the part of the people. As an instance of this, I may point to the fact that the Crimes Act is being vigorously put into operation in the County Wexford
    944
    —a county in which within the memory of living men there ha8 not been a single serious agrarian crime, where at the last Assizes the business for the whole county, with a population of 150,000 persons, only lasted one hour and a half, and consisted of one case of petty larceny. Yet this county is being singled out for the most thorough and whole-hearted administration of the Coercion Act. This is the county where secret inquiries are being held right, left, and centre. This is the county where some of the Priests who have preserved the public peace for half a century are being prosecuted under the law of criminal conspiracy, which law is administered by ex-civil engineers and ex-Indian political officers. The object of these prosecutions is to put down what the Chief Secretary regards as illegal combinations on the part of the people. There are in the county only three estates in which the Plan of Campaign is at work; on all the other estates the tenants have come to terms with their landlords. Wherever the Magistrates are exercising their sway, wherever they are sending the local leaders to prison, public opinion is indignant at the system of Government. Public opinion justifies the action of the local leaders who may have made use of such extreme expressions or assisted the tenants in their action against their landlords. These combinations are defying the Coercion Act and defying the action of the Resident Magistrates, and, so far as crime is concerned, the action of the Coercion Act is absolutely unneeded. Let me say I attribute more to faults in the system than to faults in individuals. I do not deny that there are individuals among the Magistrates utterly unfitted by training and utterly unsuited personally for the performance of Magisterial functions; but still it is more to the system and policy that I attach fault than to individuals. The right hon. Gentleman is degrading the law; he is destroying whatever remains of confidence in the minds of the people in the administration of the law. He is postponing, so far as in him lies, the approach of that day, the arrival of which I and my Colleagues ardently desire, when the law will be impartially administered between man and man in Ireland, will be regarded with confidence and respect by the people, and will cease to be an

    945
    instrument in the hands of the rich and the few to be used against the poor and the many; when it shall be no longer true, in the words of Sir Redvers Buller, that there is no law on the side of the poor man in Ireland; when the law shall be administered with firmness, discretion, and justice between man and man. When that day comes, I believe the British Empire will have in no part of its vast dimensions a more loyal or more law-abiding people than in Ireland.
    MR. COX: The Chief Secretary last night repudiated with considerable heat the assertion made that there is collusion between Dublin Castle and the administrators of the Coercion Act. The assertion that sentences were prepared in Dublin Castle and sent down to the Courts he repudiated in the most emphatic manner, and denied that the statement had any foundation in fact. Well, we must accept that statement of his, but while we do so, it must be admitted that there are peculiar coincidences in the administration of the Coercion Act that to our, perhaps, prejudiced minds seem to require some explanation. I may refer to one of these coincidences in relation to my own case. It may be within the recollection of the Committee that I was arrested under the Coercion Act here in London, the first Irish Member so arrested in England. I was taken across to the capital of my county and brought before Mr. Cecil Roche and Mr. Hodder. The case lasted two days, and my hon. and learned Friend who has just eloquently addressed the Committee defended me on that occasion. To prove the charges against me it was necessary to bring up no fewer than 85 policeman; I think that was the number present. As I was, on the second morning of the trial, being escorted in this way from the prison to the Courthouse there occured one these coincidences to which I have alluded. As I passing into the Court a Government official whispered to me—"Cox, you'll get four months to-day for your speech at Ennis. Of course you will appeal, and you will be re-arrested and then you will get one month for your speech at Kildysart." This was in the morning, and the case proceeded through the day. At the end of the proceedings, as was predicted, a sentence of four months' imprisonment was passed upon me. I
    946
    should have mentioned that, to the communication whispered in my ear, was added, "Orders have come down." Whether the orders came from Heaven or from Dublin Castle was not stated. I appealed of course, and upon leaving the Court I was re-arrested, brought before the same tribunal, and committed back to prison, bail being, as in the former case, refused. On the Tuesday following I was brought up for trial at Kildysart, where scenes occurred at which I shall have to refer later on. The charges and allegations against me on both occasions were word for word, letter for letter—in every respect identical. My first offence was my speech at Ennis, and there there might be supposed to be some excuse for me. I advised the people to stick to the constitutional agitation of the National League. Portions of that speech were read to the Committee last night by the hon. Member for York (Mr. A. Pease). There might have been some palliation of my offence on that occasion, because the proclamation of the National League in Clare had only appeared in the Gazette the day before. But my second offence was the delivery of a speech ten days afterwards, and then there was no excuse of absence of knowledge of the proclamation; and so I submit the second offence was the graver of the two, and the sentence should, therefore, have been heavier. Well, I was tried, and, of course, found guilty, and for this second offence, word for word, letter for letter, in every respect identical with the first, I was sentenced to a month's imprisonment. Against this sentence there is no appeal; it was pronounced to fill up the period of time between the one imprisonment and the other. We will suppose this is merely a coincidence, but what I would like to ask is, how was it that the Government official was able to learn what the sentences were going to be? Well, so much on the question of complicity between the Castle and Resident Magistrates in the exercise of their judicial functions. I now come to their executive functions. I was taken, as I said, to Kildysart under strong escort, and at the entrance to this small village of 30 or 40 houses I was placed in the centre of a square, and Mr. Cecil Roche, his famous blackthorn in hand, led the way. In the street, at the entrance

    947
    to the village, a few women and children were assembled. I assert and maintain that these, women and children principally, and not men, did not number more than one to every three policemen, and they had the audacity to raise a cheer for me, their Representative. Without a moment's warning this body of police, numbering at least three to one of the people in the street, charged in every direction, and in less than three minutes the village street was strewed with women and children who had dared to cheer. I saw one man, who had rushed to his door to see what was the cause of the commotion, felled by a policeman on his own doorstep. Not a stone was thrown, no offence was committed, simply the people had raised a cheer for me. When the people had been bludgeoned and dispersed the square was re-formed, and, Mr. Cecil Roche at the head, we went on to the Court House, where, in a judicial, calm, impartial frame of mind, Mr. Cecil Roche proceeded to try me for the offence of delivering a speech in that village. These are the judicial officials to whom you intrust the administration of the Crimes Act in Ireland. Disgraceful as this outrage was there is still more to tell. During the progress of the trial a considerable number of persons assembled, and many priests were present in Court. I said to the parish priest, "For God's sake get the priests to go out and clear the streets of people; do not leave them to be massacred by this ruffian Roche." The priests used their influence and cleared the streets peaceably. A few people outside cheered, but there was no further offence. One man, who appeared to be the town foil, waved his hat and commenced to cheer, and instantly half a dozen policemen rushed at him, collared him, and while they held him another policeman drew his baton and struck the man on the head. I heard the thud of the blow 50 yards distant. The baton was raised again, but District Inspector Carey and Mr. Mensell stayed the ruffian's hand. Mr. Cecil Roche looking on never attempted to interfere. Well, I was sentenced to a month's imprisonment, as I have said, and the next day I was conveyed to Ennis, and at the railway station there I chanced to overhear a conversation between two officials which I mention as
    948
    bearing directly on a case that has been more than once mentioned, the prosecution of 21 traders of Milltown Malbay, and because I think I am indirectly responsible for that prosecution. I was standing outside the carriage when I heard one official—his name I will not mention, though I know he is one of those who hate the work they are set to do—I heard this official say to another that there would be hot work in Mill-town Malbay on the occasion of the approaching trials because Mr. Cecil Roche would be there. Well, I, with the scene at Kildysart fresh in my mind, determined to do all in my power to prevent a recurrence of a savage onslaught upon defenceless people. I mentioned what I had heard to my solicitor, Mr. Lynch, and he in my name wrote to Father White, the parish priest at Milltown Malbay, asking him to use his influence to prevent the people assembling. Father White a short time ago in the Commission Court swore that he received such a message from me. It is well-known that there is no more zealous advocate in the cause of temperance in Ireland than this parish priest. Father White thought to improve on my suggestion, and he went round to the traders and asked them to close their houses on the day of these trials—trials, if I remember rightly, for alleged boycotting in the town. The publicans did as Father White suggested; they closed their houses on the day of the trial, and Mr. Cecil Roche found no excuse for bludgeoning the people there. He determined, however, to have it out with the people in some other way. It was sworn at the subsequent trial that the police station was well supplied with provisions and liquor of all sorts; but by the orders of Mr. Cecil Roche the police went round to the different traders, and for refusing to sell the police drink 21 traders of Miltown Malbay were prosecuted. This is the history of how the houses in Miltown Malbay came to be closed that day, and it will be seen that the responsibility lies with me. I am proud of the responsibility. Although it entailed a considerable amount of suffering upon these unfortunate people who were sent to gaol for refusing to open their houses, there is not a single man of them who would not be prepared to accept my

    949
    advice if I called upon them to do the same thing again. Last night the hon. Member for York (Mr. Pease) referred to a trial in which a difference of opinion arose between Mr. Kilkelly and Mr. Cecil Roche as to the sentence to be inflicted. On one point the hon. Member was mistaken, or he did not make it clear. The offenders were children, the eldest of whom was not more than 14 years old, and their crime was defending their home against eviction. Mr. Cecil Roche wanted to send the children to herd with common criminals for four months, but Mr. Kilkelly, more humane, wanted to give the minimum sentence, and accordingly, as the Magistrates disagreed, the children were discharged for the time, and were never called up for sentence afterwards. What happened? Mr. Kilkelly was sent to Drogheda, and one of the most notorious firebrands of that place—Colonel Keogh—was sent from Drogheda to replace him in Clare. Mr. Kilkelly, I am sorry to say, seems to have learned his lesson, and has taken a leaf out of the book of Mr. Roche, seeing that doing this is the only way to promotion. We had another Resident Magistrate in County Clare, a gentleman in whose administration of the law the people had entire confidence, Mr. Crotty. Before the passing of the Coercion Act, Mr. Crotty had charge at Tulla, where he had gained the respect and confidence of the people. But the Chief Secretary knew that this gentleman was no tool in the hands of the Executive—he was not a machine for the administration of the Coercion Act—so Mr. Crotty was, on the passing of the Act, removed, and the firebrand Colonel Keogh replaced him. Clare has been tried in the crucible of the Coercion Act more, perhaps, than any other county. Clare has sent more men to prison in defence of free speech, of public meeting, and the right of combination than any other county in Ireland, and I, as Representative, am proud of my county for this. The Chief Secretary has sent me to prison, either by the sentences of his Removable Magistrates or by refusal of bail, four times, but if he makes it 44 times I shall continue the same. The right hon. Gentleman has proclaimed the National League in Clare; he boasts of being the saviour of Clare and the true friend
    950
    of the people, and I challenge him to test the opinion of the people. It would be too much, perhaps, to ask him to condescend to the representation of such a barbarous constituency; but if he will not submit to that, let him nominate any gentleman among his friends, and I will resign my seat and contest the election on the lines of the National League, and if my opponent polls one vote to every 50 given for me I will undertake never to seek a seat in the House again.
    DR. KENNY: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has given as the reason for the peripatetic action of the Resident Magistrates that it is necessary that their experience should go round to assist the Magistrates of Petty Sessions in their work; but I think it may more correctly be put in another way, that they go round, not to assist, but to terrorise Magistrates at Petty Sessions, and make them do the work demanded by the Government. We had in Ireland, in days gone by, a gentleman who was known as the "walking gallows." At that time, as now, I suppose the ultima ratio of justice was not sufficiently carried out. Then, as now, men were found to interpret the wishes and designs of the Executive, and this "walking gallows" did the dirty work of the Executive, and, with a few honourable exceptions, Resident Magistrates follow his example, and lend themselves for similar work. The Solicitor General dwelt with great fervour, and worked himself into a white heat of indignation at the idea of impugning the decisions of Resident Magistrates, because he said so small a proportion of those decisions were reversed on appeal. But our position is, that the administration of justice has been polluted at its source, and, with a few honourable exceptions again, it is with deep regret I say it, County Court Judges to whom these appeals are made, are, in the main, as much tainted as the Resident Magistrates in being the willing tools to do the behests of the Executive, and as willing to curry favour to get for themselves or their relatives fresh places or promotion. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Healy) has given an example of what occurs when the Executive find out whether a County Court Judge is willing or not to agree

    951
    with the decrees pronounced by the Resident Magistrates, Because it was known that Justice Waters was a man who, on the rehearing of a case, gave equal weight to the evidence of the witnesses for the accused and the police witnesses, appeals were not referred to him but to Mr. Justice O'Brien, a legal luminary who can be relied on to give thumping sentences whenever a packed jury find a verdict of guilty. Now there is one case upon which I wish to put a question to the Chief Secretary. The case of the hon. Member for Mid-Cork (Dr. Tanner) has been before the Court of Exchequer in Dublin, and we have had a very strong expression of opinion from the Judges, chiefly from Chief Baron Palles, of whose legal knowledge L hope the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary are satisfied. The Chief Baron expressed the strongest opinion as to the state of the law which enables Resident Magistrates to deal with the offence of contempt of Court under the Statute of Edward III. I am no lawyer, but every citizen knows that that Statute was introduced for a totally different purpose than for dealing with persons guilty of contempt of Court, and I want to know why it is that this musty old Statute is used for this purpose. Was a hint sent from Dublin Castle that this was the best method of dealing with contempt of Court when it was found that the Coercion Act was rather deficient in dealing with this offence, though Heaven knows its net was sufficiently widely spread to include most offences; was there a hint, I say, thrown out that this was a convenient method of dealing with inconvenient political adversaries, to bind them under greater stress and duration than under the ordinary powers of the Court in dealing with contempt?
    "It is a strange thing," said the Chief Baron, introducing a very significant phrase, "it is a strange thing that the industry of the learned gentleman who represents the Crown has not produced a single case where a person has been held to peace for words spoken in Court."
    The Chief Baron went on to say that in Ireland until within the last two or three years the respect for the Courts must have been such that no case on the subject could arise. That is perfectly true. At Petty Sessions before these tremendous powers were given to peripatetic Magistrates under the Coercion
    952
    Act, a rough and ready kind of justice was administered, and there was no punishment for contempt of Court, because there was none necessary. The Chief Baron said also that the defamation was not that of an individual but of justice itself, and that he conceived that the words of Dr. Tanner though unmannerly might be regarded as having some relation to his defence. The hon. Member for Mid Cork was first deprived of his defender by the action of the Court, and then, being left to his own defence, because he uses language which somewhat goes beyond the normal limits of propriety, he is dealt with without warning and without caution in the most offensive manner. Why could not these gentlemen have dealt with him at once for contempt of Court? Why could they not have cautioned him? It is true, as Chief Baron Palles remarked, that it was not incumbent on them to do so. The learned Judge said he himself certainly thought that before being committed for contempt the person should have an opportunity of being heard, but the doctrine of the common law that no one should be condemned unheard, did not apply to our law, at least since the time of Edward III. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to carry out the sentence against my hon. Friend in face of the fact that this oppressive procedure was used against him—does he intend, in face of the declaration of one of the highest Courts in Ireland, to carry out a sentence which in infamous in its character, and which ought never to have been pronounced? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also let us know whether he has any intention of amending the law next Session in this particular direction. What is the position of the hon. Member for Mid Cork at this present moment? He committed the alleged contempt of Court when there was being passed on him a sentence which has been quashed. For expressing his contempt for an absolutely illegal decision he is now being imprisoned for three months if he does not give these sureties, which I think he ought not to give, and which I hope he will not give. There is another case which, as far as I know, has not been alluded to—namely, that of Mr. Powell, the editor of the Midland Tribune. That gentleman has been up twice before under the Coercion

    953
    Act, and he edits a paper that does not find favour with the powers that be in Ireland. The case appears to me to be on all fours with that of the hon. Member for Cork. It illustrates, first, the oppressive nature of this proceeding for contempt of Court, and secondly, the fact that the Resident Magistrates are the creatures of the Executive. Mr. Powell published a Report in his paper, and he was charged with having used intimidation towards Her Majesty's subjects, and endeavoured to set Her Majesty's subjects against each other. The prosecution was instituted by County Inspector Ross. The counsel for the defendant asked the Resident Magistrate, Mr. Waring, whether he would state a case. Mr. Waring said at first that he saw no objection, but he had scarcely spoken before the gentleman of whom we have heard a great deal of late, Mr. Bolton, said "I object." Mr. Waring said there was no case to state. Mr. Bolton said the stating of a case intimated that in the opinion of the Court there was something to be argued. Mr. Waring then said, "Then I will not do it." Now, I wish to know whether in this case the sentence is to be carried out. I protest most strongly against Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in Ireland, which are endowed with enormous powers—powers of a character admittedly never before conferred on Courts—being allowed now to use at their pleasure the Statute of Edward III. It is notorious that these Magistrates are not thoroughly competent, and that they act from anything but the highest possible motives. I will give a little instance of the even-handed justice which these gentlemen mete out. In Macroom on September 29th, last year, Mr. O'Shea, the secretary of the branch of the League, was convicted of writing a letter inviting a man to explain his conduct, and was sentenced to four months' imprisonment with hard labour, without the option of a fine. All Mr. O'Shea did was to write a letter just as the secretary of a club would write to a member asking him to give an explanation before the committee of something which was supposed to be an offence against the members of the club. Two days later the Magistrates who passed this sentence on Mr. O'Shea had to adjudicate upon a charge against a clerk to the firm of Hussey and Towns-
    954
    end, the well-known land agents, of having assaulted a common prostitute on a Sunday morning. He had got the woman into his office, and the police, assisted by some corporate officials, had to come and rescue her. Evidence was given to the effect that they found the woman lying on the floor in the hall, looking very faint and with tears in her eyes. The Magistrates convicted the person, and said the justice of the case would be satisfied with the infliction of a fine of £5. No doubt the character of the person assaulted might cast some suspicion on her testimony, but the man was convicted not on her evidence, but on that of the police-sergeant, and yet the Magistrates who two days before gave Mr. O'Shea four months' imprisonment for writing a letter inviting an explanation of a man's conduct, let this man off with a fine of £5. That, Sir, is the even-handed justice of the Resident Magistrates. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary what he has to say about the proceedings of Major Cadell in turning Canon Keller off his own premises during the Ponsonby evictions. The Canon was at the time standing in the churchyard, which, as is customary in Ireland, is absolutely vested in him. There is no allegation by the police that there was stone-throwing where he was standing. The police ordered him out of his own premises, and used a certain degree of force in ejecting him. I want to know by what right they did this. Is there any common law right in Ireland which enables the police to enter on private premises where no felony is being committed and violently to remove the owner? I want to know also whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to keep Mr. Powell in prison? There is one fact which ought to weigh with the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Powell has been previously in prison, and, in consequence of his imprisonment, has lost the sight of one eye. This is no exaggeration, but is a well ascertained fact. Of course when the sight of one eye is lost, there is always extreme danger of the sight of the other going by sympathy, and if Mr. Powell now remains in prison, he is in a much worse position for standing the effects of the imprisonment. I say that if by a system of imprisonment you endanger the life, or seriously impair the physical well-being

    955
    of a person, you are giving that person more punishment than the tribunal before which he appeared had rightly or wrongly given. When you give a man four months' imprisonment, plus the loss of an eye, you give him more than the tribunal intended to give him, and there is a gross violation of every principle of justice.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am sure we have heard with interest the speech delivered by the Solicitor General for Ireland, who is honestly opposed to us, but who always recollects that he is speaking to his own countrymen, for he never acts in a way to provoke irritating or hostile personal comment. I will endeavour to follow his example. I may say, in all sincerity, I was astonished when the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the Resident Magistrates as a body of competent practised Judges. In what does their competency or practice consist? It consists of being well versed in all the significance of the nods and winks of the Castle officials, and their competency lies in their power and ability to convict. The Resident Magistrates have merely the courage of convicting at the beck of the Government. I think it would be useful for the House to consider the enormous powers given to Resident Magistrates. Cecil Roche and O'Neill Segrave have a power and influence over the fortunes and liberties of their countrymen which is not possessed either by the Lord Chief Justice in England, or by the Lord Chief Justice in Ireland. The highest magistrate in the land cannot try a case of conspiracy without the intervention of a jury, but Cecil Roche and O'Neill Segrave have been able to. The Lord Chief Justices I have named hold, I believe, the Commission of the Peace in every county, and if they both, or either of them, were to enter a Coercion Court in which two Resident Magistrates were trying a case of conspiracy, they could not interfere, because the Coercion Act has taken away from ordinary Magistrates the power of sitting in these Courts, and has entrusted the administration of the Act to removable Magistrates paid by the Government, and liable to dismissal without notice and without explanation. These Magistrates hold their Commission by the influence of one man, for
    956
    the Second Reading of the Coercion Bill was carried only through the influence of the publication of Pigott's forged letters in the Times. The Solicitor General endeavoured to discount the value of certain extracts, quoted from a Judge's charge by my hon. Friend, by eliciting that the charge was delivered before Resident Magistrates came into existence. It is certainly true that they did not exist in Ireland at that time, but as we go on we find fresh means of tyranny. The hon. and learned Gentleman must remember perfectly well the late Archbishop Whateley, who was not a partisan, for he kept aloof from Irish political parties; yet he said in 1852 that the Lord Lieutenant's time was largely occupied in deciding what ruined gambler should have this or that Stipendiary Magistracy. Again, Lord Rosse, the Chancellor of Dublin University, whose son stood against the hon. Gentleman as an independent Conservative, and whose election I did my best to promote, said the men selected for the position of Resident Magistrates were generally elderly roués with broken fortunes and damaged reputations, who were made stipendaries because their patrons dare not venture to make them anything else. He goes on to say that the Government appoint only those who are absolutely dependent on them. Some are habitual drunkards, and more than half unable to show themselves except on Sundays. They are called "Sunday birds." There was, I believe, one whose body was seized by his butcher after death. I have here some of the characters written for applicants for these posts of "competent and practised judges," by their relatives to the Lord Lieutenant of the day. They were read in this House on the 1st April, 1887. I will only read one of them. It was addressed to Lord Carlisle, and the writer applied on behalf of his brother, "who had been leading an idle life and contracting habits injurious to his health as well as distressing to his family." The letter continued—
    "He has latterly, I rejoice to say, been leading a different life; he has recently formed an attachment to an interesting Scotch lady, one who in point of deep religious belief is all that could be wished for. Their union is only delayed by financial reasons, and under these circumstances I venture to ask your Excellency to procure for him a situation as Stipendiary Magistrate, for which he is extremely well

    957
    qualified, as he regularly and efficiently discharges his duties as J.P. in this parish."
    Later on the writer adds that "some post of less value would be acceptable." This letter is signed, "P. Fitzgerald, Knight of Kerry." Now, that letter was written 25 years ago. But is this system of appointing Resident Magistrates still continued? What about O'Neill Segrave? How is it possible that that man, who was discharged from an inferior regiment for embezzlement of public and private funds—for frauds of a wantonly heartless nature, because he embezzled some money given him by a private soldier to take home to his mother—I ask how comes this man to be a competent and practised Judge? I fancy his head was filled with bad law, and his stomach with good whisky. What a Solon for the Government to place on the judgment seat! What a Daniel come to judgment! It was Dr. Tanner who first brought the case of Mr. Segrave before the House, and who first gave the House information, which the Government could easily have got through the Colonial Office. And now Dr. Tanner is punished, possibly by the exercise of an illegal and certainly an unusual jurisdiction, because he has unearthed that gentleman and stamped the character of the Resident Magistrates by giving Mr. Segrave as a specimen of the order. If the Irish Government did not know Mr. Segrave's antecedents when they appointed him, their negligence was in the highest degree culpable. If they did know them their conduct was wicked in the extreme. But is it to be believed that they did not know his antecedents? Credat Judæus Apella. I might freely translate that as "You may tell that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer." And now I come to the case of Dr. Tanner. He is at present serving three months' imprisonment. He was brought before a tribunal on a false and fictitious charge; he was charged under the Coercion Act, and if he misbehaved himself in Court the men who took him there were largely responsible for his misbehaviour. Of course, wonders never cease, but I want to know how it comes to pass that the two Resident Magistrates had a miraculous knowledge of the antique and obsolete Statute of Edward III., which was not possessed by the Law Officers of the Crown in this House, or
    958
    even by an ex-Attorney General for England? Who suggested it to these men? How did they find it out? Who drafted for them that elaborate and legal document of process for contempt, which they brought with them into Court? Was it done by inspiration? Where did it come from? Did it come from the recesses of the Cabinet? When the appeal was being heard one very interesting observation was made by the Attorney General for Ireland. He said—
    "I have given my opinion that this jurisdiction exists in this case, whether justly exercised or not."
    Why did he go the extreme length of giving that opinion? I am certain that that document came from Dublin Castle. There is nothing new under the sun. A similar act of discovering musty and obsolete laws was once done in England in the days of the Stuarts, and all I can say is that a man who would dig down and exhume old statutes which everybody has forgotten for the purpose of doing an injustice, or what is worse, for the purpose of political calumny, is a person of whom no Administration need be proud. I regret that the Chief Secretary is not in his place. He has again and again reproved me for the tone of my references to these Magistrates. Of course I only laugh at his reproof. I again say that they are underground and secret agents carrying out the behests of the Chief Secretary. They are in a position of inferiority, they are dependent upon him. The "able and experienced judges" called Resident Magistrates are manufactured at Dublin Castle at round table conferences between them and the Chief Secretary for Ireland called to discuss the political situation. Otherwise what is the meaning of the paragraph recently published to the effect that Colonel Turner, Mr. Cecil Roche, and another Magistrate, who has been in attendance on the Chief Secretary during the last two days at the Castle, have returned to their districts. That is the way in which you manufacture your competent and experienced Judges. You have a conference between the starving Judges and their paymaster. When the Coercion Act first came into operation the right hon. Gentleman's minions thought they would best curry favour with him by inflicting the heaviest possible sen-

    959
    tences under the Act, and consequently we had quite a crop of sentences of six months' imprisonment. This, of course, led to appeals, and pending the hearing of these the convicted Members went about the country repeating the so-called offences. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking in Manchester, in November, 1887, said that Resident Magistrates ought to give one month sentences, so that there would be no fear of appeal or of the men who were charged going about the country promoting disorder and confusion before the appeal was heard. For three months after the delivery of that speech I noticed that sentences for one month, accompanied with hard labour, were given, and the persons convicted were thus robbed of their right of appeal. The right hon. Gentleman made a comical excuse about the peregrinations of the Resident Magistrates. I asked him how it came to pass that, although these Magistrates were travelling all about the country, we were refused statistics in reference to the number of cases tried by each of them under the Coercion Act? Why are they sent all over the country? Is it not because men like Hamilton and Cecil Roche and Segrave could be relied upon to convict? I was reading last Sunday the Book of Job, which I will recommend the Members of the Government to peruse. A question was put to one, who was certainly not an angel, whence he came. The reply was from going up and down in the earth and from going to and fro in the land. That is exactly the motto of the favorite Resident Magistrates, and I have no doubt that when these gentlemen have finished their careers they will receive from the right hon. Gentleman the commendation, "Well done thou good and faithful servants." Now, I think no accusation against the Government would be complete unless we brought in a touch of the Times. I find that Captain Plunkett, the "don't-hesitate-to-shoot" man, was away from his duties 56 days in London, and Mr. Slack was absent 60 days. Three other Resident Magistrates volunteered to help the Times in tabulating returns for the Special Commission, and the Government, which out of its generosity gave the services of its Attorney General, has given rapid promotion to these men. Mr. Cecil Roche is promoted, and why?
    960
    "Because," says the Chief Secretary, "he richly deserves it." At the risk of being a little out of order I may say I wonder whether that gentleman is a far-away cousin of an interesting family, because the country is being governed at present by a family party. In conclusion, let me say that Resident Magistrates in Ireland bring justice into contempt, and they are the chief priests in the blasphemy of justice which at present characterises Irish administration.
    MR. GILL: I believe that the Statute of Edward III. has been used against the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), Mr. Powell, and the rest simply for the purpose of depriving them of the right of appeal, and at the same time inflicting on them a longer term of imprisonment than can be inflicted under the Crimes Act without an opportunity of appealing being afforded. The case of the hon. Member for Mid Cork is by no means an isolated one. There is also the case of Mr. Powell, of the Midland Tribune, the case of Mr. O'Reilly, of County Tipperary, both of whom were sentenced under the Act of Edward III. I find also that, on Tuesday last, two Magistrates in County Cork sentenced one of the tenants on the Ponsonby Estate under that Statute. The young man was cited for one of the usual offences under the Coercion Act, and sentenced to a month's imprisonment. The defendant said, "I accept the sentence, and I would do the same in the morning." The Bench then reconsidered their sentence, and ordered the defendant to find bail for his good behaviour for 12 months, or to go to prison for a further term of three months. Besides these cases, there are six others, of tenants on the Leader Estate in County Cork, who were sentenced under the same Act. The fact is, that there is what I think I may call a wholesale application of the Act of Edward III., so as to deprive the people of the right of appeal. We have seen, in the case of Dr. Tanner, that no right of appeal exists. I denounce this as a conspiracy between the right hon. Gentleman and his Removable Magistrates, to effect the same purpose with regard to Coercion Act prisoners as he originally tried to effect by consecutive sentences of one month's imprisonment. The apologists for the Government may

    961
    say, as the Attorney General for Ireland said in Court the other day, that this is no punishment at all, because a man can escape going to gaol if he gives bail to be of good behaviour. The Chief Baron of the Exchequer said the other day, "For my part, if I was ordered to give bail for good behaviour, nothing in the world would induce me to do so." The Irish people have taken the very same view of this indignity. It is of course on the calculation that they would take that view that this policy is being adopted. It is known that in no single instance would any of these men, who are not criminals, consent to give bail to be of good behaviour and thus place a brand and stigma upon themselves. I trust the point will be dwelt upon by other speakers, and that public opinion will be so brought to bear upon this attempt to deprive the intended victims of the Coercion Act of the right of appeal, which even this House of Commons had the intention of giving them, that the scheme will be exploded as was that of giving consecutive sentences of one month's imprisonment. Now, Mr. Courtney, there is one very important matter to which I wish to refer in regard to the Resident Magistrates. One of the most important and prudent of these executive officers in Ireland is Colonel Turner. I wish to draw attention to some of the recent proceedings of that gentleman, and to call upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to say whether, in his opinion, Colonel Turner is a fit and proper person to hold the position he does hold. Colonel Turner is a Divisional Commissioner for the district of Clare, Kerry, and other counties, and I wish to refer particularly to his conduct in connection with the Vandaleur Estate, which has been the scene of some of the most striking eviction episodes that have taken place in Ireland, and which has been still more recently before the notice of the public as one of the most important instances in which the struggle of the Plan of Campaign has ended in securing justice for the tenant, and in bringing to reason a landlord who originally was mistaken enough to deny the just claims of his tenants. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) told me the other night that the battering ram had only been used in a
    962
    couple of instances. Why on this very estate when the evictions began there the battering ram was used under the active superintendance of Colonel Turner in the cases of some twenty tenants, and the whole district was devastated by its operations. Numerous evictions took place, and a number of houses were levelled with the battering ram. The result was that the peace of the district was disturbed, and Clare became one of those counties which the right hon. Gentleman was able to quote at the head of his Coercion statistics. Colonel Turner was not content with superintending and aiding in the operations for the clearance of the estate, but he actually wrote letters to the Times describing what ought to be done, and was one of the first of those to suggest that which was known some time ago as the plantation policy. He suggested that the farms of the evicted tenants should be given to people imported from the North of Ireland and elsewhere, and stocked with the cattle of the Landlords' Association. Well, a few months ago a change came over the spirit of the scene. The landlord was reasonable enough; and I give him every credit for his action. I think it was a course of action which the landlords through the West of Ireland would have been wise to follow. Colonel Vandaleur had the good sense and feeling to think that a war with his tenants under these circumstances was a great mistake, and he declared he was willing to submit the quarrel between them to arbitration, if the tenants were also willing. Of course the tenants were willing, as the tenants on every estate in Ireland are willing, to accept the principle of arbitration. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Sir C. Russell) was chosen by the landlord as arbitrator, and the tenants hailed his appointment with the utmost satisfaction. His award was made in a few days. It was carried out in the most whole-hearted spirit, and peace was restored to the whole district. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had been asked just before this whether he would interfere, and had declined. What the Government of the country, who are charged with maintaining peace and order, had neglected was carried out by the landlord himself and by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, and the Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Sexton),

    963
    all of them private individuals unconnected with the Government. Under the award all the evicted tenants were to be reinstated, and the landlord announced that he would reinstate every one of them. The Emergency men took their departure, and the extra police who had been saddled on the district all went away. But there was one of these farms which the landlord had been foolish enough to use in the manner suggested by Colonel Turner. It had been let to a land grabber. The landlord desired to have the farm given back to the original tenant as the rest were. The land-grabber had been but a short time in possession of the farm when he felt the public opinion of the country was so strong against his action that he resolved to go to America. He practically abandoned the farm and went away. A few days afterwards, however, the grabber's mother took up possession of the farm. She was approached by the priests of the district, as representing the tenants, and it was found that with a very little arrangement she could be induced to place no obstacle in the way of the return of the evicted tenant. Everything now promised most harmoniously. But at this point there comes in Colonel Turner, the Divisional Commissioner, the gentleman whose duty it is to preserve the peace of the district and to give all his thought and energies to the study of how to preserve the peace of the district. What does he do in this case? He steps in between the landlord and the tenant and does his utmost—and has been doing his utmost up to this very moment—to prevent the peace of the district being established, and to prevent the carrying out of a settlement desired by landlords, tenants, arbitrators, and the friends of both sides, including an hon. and respected Member of the Tory Party, sitting opposite. It was proved in Court—not in a Court of Justice but in one of these Coercion Courts—that he went with a removable Magistrate, Captain Welsh, to Mrs Jackson, the landgrabber's mother, who was willing to refrain from throwing any obstacle in the way of the settlement. The visit was paid the day after the award was made; and they announced to her, in presence of the police-guard who were with her, that she had a claim on the holding which
    964
    she could maintain, in spite of the landlord and in spite of everybody, and they advised her to keep a grip on it, and not give it up. That is how the Divisional Commissioner for the West of Ireland carries out the duty of preserving peace in his district. So far had the negotiations gone for the restoration of the real tenant to that holding that his cattle had actually—in accordance with the award, and practically with the permission of Mrs. Jackson—been put to grass on his farm. His neighbours had also begun to build up again his house, which had been destroyed. After the visit of Colonel Turner and Captain Welsh the woman drove all the cattle off the holding, telling the evicted tenant clearly that she would summon him for trespass, and saying that Colonel Turner and Captain Welsh had told her to keep a grip upon the land. The woman took out a summons in the Petty Sessions Court for the trespass of the cattle which, by her own consent, had been placed on the land. And who was sitting on the Bench? The very Captain Welsh who had accompanied Colonel Turner on the visit to Mrs. Jackson. The woman was examined by the solicitor for the tenant, and admitted, without the least reserve, the whole story such as I have detailed to the Committee. She described the visit of Colonel Turner and Captain Welsh, and said how in consequence of that action she had taken the course I have referred to. Captain Welsh threw every obstacle in the way of the truth coming out by saying "You need not answer that question," and so on; but the fact was established that the visit had been paid in order to induce the woman to act as a rankling spearhead in the side of the country. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has left his place, because remonstrances have been addressed to him by the landlord of the estate and by a member of his own Party who acted for the landlord in the negotiations with regard to the conduct of Colonel Turner; and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of truth and in the interests of respect for the administration of his law, to produce those remonstrances and to give the House the reasons why he still retains Colonel Turner in the position of Pasha of this district, and in the possession of powers

    965
    not known elsewhere on the face of Europe, except, perhaps, in the countries under the rule of Turkey or Russia. Colonel Turner is a gentleman for whom the right hon. Gentleman need have no affection, unless it be out of gratitude for these left-handed services. He cannot claim him as an honest political partizan, or as a thorough-going believer in his method of governing Ireland. Before the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) came into office, and when another sun seemed to be rising above the horizon, Colonel Turner was not merely an ardent Home Ruler, but he has been described by a member of the Cowper Commission, in a letter which was famous at that time, as a noted Fenian. I do not myself allege that Colonel Turner was a member of the Fenian Body. But the description given by that member of the Cowper Commission of the hands into which General Buller had fallen—namely, those of Colonel Turner—was an illustration of what he regarded as the intensity of Colonel Turner's national principle. He said General Buller had fallen into the hands of a noted Fenian; and here I would point out that, at the time of the General Election of 1886, Colonel Turner did not devote his energies to the return of the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary belongs. A distinguished member of the Party to which I am attached is in possession of a letter written by Colonel Turner to another member of the same Party asking that gentleman to secure the attendance of a third gentleman at the election for the Ayr Burghs to aid in the return of the Home Rule candidate. But the Home Rule Party having failed to obtain a majority at the General Election Colonel Turner probably thought it would not be convenient to confess his political proclivities under the new régime, and so, like the renegade he is, he turned over to the cause he had previously done his utmost to defeat, with all the zeal and energy that usually distinguish a recreant. He has, indeed, in aiding the right hon. Gentleman to carry out his policy of coercion, overstepped what even the right hon. Gentleman himself would consider the limits of reason and duty; and, interfering as he has done, between landlord and tenant in the extreme and perverted zeal he has displayed, he has even gone
    966
    the length of insulting, in the most outrageous manner, one of the most respected and venerable priests of the religion which he himself professes—for Colonel Turner, be it understood, is a Roman Catholic. As an illustration, and a very forcible illustration, of the spirit in which he has acted throughout these negotiations in regard to the Vandaleur estate, I will read to the Committee an extract from a letter which has fallen into my hands, written by Colonel Turner to a fellow official. Father Dinan, the parish priest of Kilrusb, is one of the oldest and most respected of the priests officiating throughout the diocese of which he is Vicar General. Everybody who knows anything of the South of Ireland knows the character of the reverend Dr. Dinan. Such was the action of that venerable and beloved priest that to him mainly, when we go back to the ultimate source, must be ascribed the restoration of peace to the district to which that estate belongs. He it is who has brought about the beneficial results that have been produced in the face of so much opposition. I may here add that the reverend Dr. Dinan is aided by a body of curates and parish priests than whom, in no part of Ireland, are there men more highly respected and honoured. Well, here is the way in which Colonel Turner, in a letter to a fellow official, who senamel shall not disclose, speaks of the Rev. Dr. Dinan and his fellow priests. He writes from Ennis, and the letter is dated last December:—
    "I shall be sorry indeed to lose your services at Kilrush till a better state of things is established; but how that is to be done, till old Dinan and some of his villainous priests are removed, I do not see."
    I have already explained to the Committee how Colonel Turner has done his part in establishing a better state of things, and I have also shown the part the Rev. Dr. Dinan has taken in the endeavour to establish peace. I have further shown how this recreant nationalist and Catholic does not scruple to describe some of the most respected priests of his own church: "How that is to be done, till old Dinan and some of his villainous priests are removed, I do not see." "Removed," in the sense in which it must here be taken, is a nice word to pass between one Irish official

    967
    and another. In fact, the whole letter is one of the most disgraceful and abominable revelations of the state of mind fostered by the judicial and executive functionaries, which the present Administration has enabled us to become acquainted with. There is but one more matter with which I have to deal. I have described to the Committee the restoration of the evicted tenants on the Vandaleur estate. Every one of the farms on which evictions had taken place, had been in the possession of emergency men with a special guard of policemen to themselves. Each of these policemen helped to swell the number ordinarily employed in the Clare District, and served to enable the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to draw lurid pictures of the state of that county. It was only the other day at the Clare Assizes, that Colonel Turner presented a Report to Judge Harrison, in which he stated that, owing to the operation of the Crimes Act, he had been enabled to withdraw 47 extra policemen from County Clare. These 47 men were the police who had been guarding the emergency men on the farms from which the tenants had been evicted. This is how the right hon. Gentleman fabricates his visionary statements as to peace being brought about by the administration of coercion. And yet, in spite of the exertions of the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the most persistent, extraordinary and unparalleled exertions on the part of Colonel Turner, Captain Walsh, and other persons charged with the preservation of the peace in that District, the peace of the neighbourhood has only been restored by the action of private individuals. Nevertheless, here we have Colonel Turner addressing to the Judge of Assize a statement which I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has docketted for the purpose of quotation on some future occasion in order that he may show that owing to the way in which the Coercion Act has been administered, 47 of the extra police employed in maintaining the peace of that county have been removed, and that the peace of the district has been restored. The whole case is as apt an illustration of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman employs the services of his Divisional Commissioners and Removable Magistrates as could
    968
    well be adduced; and it will be seen that it is not a system for the preservation of the peace, and the maintenance of law and order; but a system deliberately carried on for the provocation of disturbance, the prevention of peace, and the undermining of all respect for the administration of the law. I ask the right hon. Gentleman either to refute my statements as to Colonel Turner, and not to attempt this by a mere wave of the hand, or by an assertion based on nothing, except it be the statements of Colonel Turner himself, but by something in the shape of tangible fact; or else to tell the Committee the reason why he retains in the responsible position held by that Gentleman in county Clare, and several other counties, a man who has proved himself unworthy of his office, and who, instead of being the friend of law and order, has been the enemy of both, and a constant disturber of the public peace. I earnestly urge the right hon. Gentleman to offer some reply to me upon this matter, and I would appeal to the Committee to say whether what I have brought forward is not sufficiently serious to call for an answer. At the present moment Colonel Turner holds the position I have described, and I say it is a monstrous thing that a man should be retained in such a post who has been shown to have acted in the manner I have narrated.
    COLONEL BLUNDELL: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, has spoken of Colonel Turner having changed his colours in regard to political matters; but the hon. Gentleman seems to forget that there is such a thing as a process of slow conviction, and it is by that process that the opinions of Colonel Turner have been changed. I may add that it was entirely due to Colonel Turner declining to support the landlord that the compromise we have heard of was effected on the Vandaleur estate. I have this on the very best authority, and I would recommend the hon. Member for South Louth to ascertain for himself whether this is not the fact.
    MR. FLYNN: I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in his place, not so much because I have risen to address the Committee, but because of the facts I desire to bring before him; facts

    969
    which I hope he will not endeavour to meet or refute by vague and general statements, without any satisfactory basis or foundation. In speaking of these matters the right hon. Gentleman usually winds up by paying a high tribute to the value of those officers who are discharging very troublesome duties at a period of great difficulty and danger with patriotic zeal and ability. I desire at the outset of my remarks to assure the Committee that in attacking the action of the Resident Magistrates and in mentioning some of them by name, we do not wish to be understood as attacking individuals; what we do is to attack the system they assist in administering. We look on them only as the miserable tools of a wicked system; as so many automatic machines into which the Crown Prosecutor or the district inspector shoves a copy of the Gazette, in some disturbed district, whereupon out rolls a conviction under the Crimes Act, as readily as a cigarette from the boxes with which we have latterly become so familiar throughout the country. We desire to assail the system under which these officials are appointed, and in order to do this terrible examples, which cannot be gainsaid by the other side, have been brought forward. A few days ago in anticipation of this debate, I asked for a very simple Return, but failed to obtain it. A Return has been in the hands of hon. Members since last March, but it does not contain what we wish to ascertain. In asking for the Return I have referred to, I regret to say that I did not meet with even the commonest of courtesy which the very youngest man of this House has a right to expect from any minister, however powerful or high in office. That Return would have needed very few headings, and I feel sure that it could have been made out in Dublin Castle, probably in ten minutes. It was to have been a Return showing the seniority of those persons who hold these appointments, and, had it been presented, the Committee would have been enabled to see, by reference to the salaries and dates of appointment, who among the total number, amounting, I believe, to 76, had been promoted over the heads of others; what increase of salary they had received, and the amount of class promotion they had obtained.
    970
    But although this Return was refused, I have, through another source, managed to get particulars as to the extraordinary manner in which the promotion of these Resident Magistrates is brought about. The right hon. Gentleman, the chief Secretary has told us that seniority is not the only consideration in regard to questions of promotion; but at the same time he cannot gainsay the fact that under a normal state of things seniority is a valuable consideration in matters of promotion. I find that certain individuals who have been conspicuous and notorious in the administration of the Coercion Act, are exactly those who have been recently selected for promotion over the heads of others, and that they have been promoted in a manner that cannot be looked upon as otherwise than extremely suspicious. I find that a certain Mr. Home, about whom, when we come to discuss the Times case, we shall no doubt hear something, and who was most active in working the Times case up, has been promoted over the heads of thirty of his colleagues, from the third to the first class, and that his salary has been increased by £250 a year. This may be a coincidence, but it is one of a number that go to build up a solid superstructure of fact which no hon. Gentleman in this House can explain away. Then we find that Mr. Harvey has been promoted from the second to the first class, with a rise of £125 a year, while Captains Walsh and Pearce and Mr. Maine and Mr. Irwin have also been promoted over quite a number of superior officers from one class to another. But what most concerns the argument in this connection is that the notorious Mr. Cecil Roche, whose name has so often been heard in this and in former Debates, has been promoted over the heads of at least 11 of his colleagues. Now, I say that the task of ascertaining these facts ought not to be left to the industry of any private individual. I ask, is the right hon. Gentleman ashamed of this system, or is he not. [Cries of "No" from the Ministerial Benches.] Then why does he refuse to present the simple Return that was asked for last Monday. Such a Return has always been issued to this House up to June, 1887, and I ask why has a change been made in the form in which it has hitherto been presented?

    971
    The reason can only be that the Committee would more easily be able to ascertain the modus operandi by which these men are promoted for the performance of their duties to the Executive. A great deal has been said of the want of qualification on the part of many of the Resident Magistrates, and I think we may divide the qualifications they possess into two classes, the negative and the positive. The negative qualifications belongs to the type represented by the Redmonds, the Gardners, the Segraves, the Warburtons, the Cecil Roches, and some others; and the positive qualification is that whereby they exhibit on every possible occasion a complete contempt for the public opinion of Ireland, and a stern antipathy to the Nationalist Party, whenever the opportunity offers itself. The right hon. Gentleman quoted with great glee last night—he seemed as proud of it as a woman of a new bonnet—a remark made by Chief Baron Palles, in reference to the case of the hon. Member for Mid Cork; but the same learned Judge and Mr. Baron Dowse, not long ago, in a celebrated case, delivered as crushing a judgment on a decision given by two of these Magistrates, Messrs. Redmond and Gardner, as any two Judges were ever called on to deliver on the action of inferior officials in Ireland. Besides this, I may remind the Committee that last November my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork brought under the notice of the House and the Government the conduct of Captain Segrave, and within a week of that time the Government were fully cognizant of facts that would have justified them in suspending Captain Segrave at once; but notwithstanding this, he was allowed to retain his office, and three months after he was in receipt of a salary of £435 a year. Then we have the case of Mr. Warburton, who was looked upon as an experienced Magistrate, in addition to being a well-informed and learned man. He is now dead and—de mortuis nil nisi bonum—I do not wish to say anything derogatory to his memory. Still, I may point out that Baron Dowse, in connection with a very ordinary case on which Mr. Warburton bad adjudicated, characterised an act done by him as most ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary never
    972
    seems at all abashed by the most positive and incontrovertible statements of facts, which are public property and known to every man, woman, and child in Ireland. He denied last night what is a notorious fact. He denied that there was a combination of the Judicial and Administrative or Executive functions in the case of the Irish Resident Magistrates. Many extraordinary statements have been made as to matters of fact; but this statement of the right hon. Gentleman is not only utterly bewildering, but has not the slightest foundation. It is within my own knowledge, and that of my Friends near me, that the same Magistrates do discharge both Judicial and Executive functions in the same town and district—aye, and very frequently on the same day. There is nothing like reducing this statement to the closest possible issue. Take the ease of Captain Gardiner, the Resident Magistrate in Cork. The fact of his performing magisterial functions in Cork does not prevent his adjudicating in the Counties of Limerick and Kerry, and besides this, I have seen him charging at the head of a troop of lancers and going out at the head of a large number of police. I have, scores of times, seen him at the head of constabulary armed with baton and bayonet keeping order—or rather promoting disorder—in the streets of Cork and other places. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, therefore, if he will be candid enough to withdraw the statement he made last night with regard to the allegation that Captain Gardiner is to be seen one day adjudicating in the City of Cork and another day heading a battle charge. Captain Segrave was another Resident Magistrate who combined Executive with administrative functions whilst stationed at Kanturk. He sat in judgment upon myself and several priests, and on other occasions was in charge of constabulary. In April, 1888, when I, accompanied by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. T. Healy), went down to test the accuracy of the statement of the Chief Secretary that the National League was a thing of the past, I saw Captain Segrave charging at the head of the constabulary. I will give another case—that of Mr. Cecil Roche of Tralee. Not satisfied with adjudicating

    973
    on the Bench in the Petty Sessions district of Tralee and at Killarney, we find him actually leaving the Bench to put himself at the head of the constabulary in order to beat the people, men, women, and children. Is that a mixing up of judicial and administrative functions, or is it not? I could give similar cases from almost every Petty Sessional district in Ireland, and I hope the Chief Secretary will now have the candour to withdraw the statement he has made if it is at all possible for him to do anything consistent with veracity.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must know that that language is not permissible. He must withdraw the expression he has used.
    MR. FLYNN: I withdraw the word "veracity."
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must withdraw in a suitable manner.
    MR. FLYNN: I withdraw, Sir, and apologise for using the word. What I wished to convey was that the right hon. Gentleman does not give an accurate idea to the House in his narrative of affairs that occur in Ireland, but brings forward and maintains as facts what we know to be absolutely without foundation. With regard to Captain Slacke, Divisional Commissioner, who was in command of the forces on the occasion of the painful evictions at Luggacurran a few months ago, I should like to know whether he was paid for doing the landlords' work or not? He and an Inspector of Constabulary, whom he had with him, brought forward from the rent-office particulars of the valuation and the rent and arrears due from all the tenants. They furnished the landlords' version of the dispute to all who wished to know it, in particular to the gentlemen of the Press; and, if these officials were paid for doing the work of the landlord, I think it ought to be known to the Committee. In connection with Captain Slacke, I have to complain of a most contemptible and discreditable breach of faith, for which, however, I do not hold Captain Slacke personally responsible. On the occasion of certain evictions, I was in attendance for the purpose of obtaining some information from the tenants, and Captain Slacke came up to me and two or three representatives of the Press, with whom I was in conversation, and
    974
    said, "Mr. Flynn, in case you may have business in Dublin or elsewhere, I feel it right to tell you that to-morrow these evictions will not be proceeded with." I and my friends accordingly returned to Dublin, and the next day I received a telegram saying that a large force of police had marched out from their encampment, accompanied by soldiers, and had evicted a number of families. Whoever was responsible for this I do not know; but it was a most contemptible and discreditable transaction. Whether it was done to withdraw the remainder of the evictions from the light of public criticism—to ensure that they should be effected in the absence of the gentlemen of the Press—I do not undertake to say, but tome it looks suspiciously as though that were the case. I will now only draw attention to one or two little matters which I think have, up to the present, escaped the notice of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, as well as the Solicitor General for Ireland, have referred in terms of triumph to the small number of cases on appeal in which the sentences of the Magistrates have been reversed. I think the hon. and learned Member for Longford (Mr. T. Healy) has pretty effectually disposed of that portion of the case, and I trust right hon. Gentlemen will not have the temerity to refer to it in the same spirit again. I would ask the attention of the Committee to this significant fact—that, from the commencement of the proceedings under the Coercion Act, there has been no recorded instance in which two Resident Magistrates on the Bench have differed in deciding a case. Chief Baron Palles, and Baron Dowse, and Mr. Justice Andrews may differ as to most important questions of law, and as to questions of fact, and the most learned and experienced Judges may differ. Ordinary unpaid Magistrates may differ, but there is no instance on record, so far as my observation goes, where Resident Magistrates have differed as to the cases which have come before them; and there has only been one case in which Members of the Nationalist Party brought before them has been acquitted. Another thing which shows the animus of the Resident Magistrates is this. They have power, under the Coercion Act, to make persons whom they con-

    975
    vict first-class misdemeanants, but I am not aware that they have exercised the power, although in a few cases the County Court Judges have done so on appeal. The Magistrates would have been guilty of no dereliction of duty had they exercised this power, but they have not exercised it—at any rate, if they have it has only been in one or two cases. They have acted entirely in negation of the legal maxim which obtains in every civilised country, namely, "Acquit if you can; convict if you must." Their policy has been to convict if they could, and acquit only if compelled to do so. Seeing that that is the spirit in which these gentlemen have performed their functions, and that the large salaries we are asked to vote would be paid for duties that are productive only of disorder and contempt for the law, I trust that the Committee will resist the demand of the Government.
    MR. A. PEASE: I understand that under the Rules of the House, the Amendment I had the honour to move yesterday has lapsed. I beg, therefore, formally, to propose it again. I move to reduce the Vote by £1,000 as a protest against the system under which the Resident Magistrates are appointed, and against the manner in which the administration of Ireland is carried on by the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £83,062, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Alfred Pease.)
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I desire to make a short personal explanation before proceeding to deal more directly with the subject before the Committee. I had the honour to address the House early this morning, and I find in the Times a report to the effect that I commented on the absence of the Liberal Party during these Debates. I am sorry that it should have gone forth that I referred deprecatingly to their absence. On the contrary, I referred to the observation of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had said that the Liberal Party had been absent; and I said that so far from the Liberal Party being absent during these discussions what struck me was that so many Liberal Members were present at this late period of the
    976
    Session. I cannot imagine a more unfair way of reporting what I said. I trust that either the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary or the Irish Solicitor General will rise to address the Committee before we go to a Division, and that he will allude to the letter read by the hon. Member for Louth in which Colonel Turner used most insulting expressions against a revered priest and his colleagues in County Clare. I also trust that a pledge will be given that a subject to which I am now going to refer will be inquired into. I am delighted to see the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale in his place, for there are a great many people in this country who look up to him with great respect as a model of what an Englishman ought to be, and I am about to bring a case before the Committee which I think ought to appeal to the feelings of the noble Lord and to every English gentleman here. It is the case of Mr. Cecil Roche who pronounced sentence on my hon. Friend the Member for West Kerry. I hold that a more vindictive, cruel and abominable sentence was never pronounced by an Irish Resident Magistrate. What was the offence for which he was sentenced to six months' hard labour? It was not making a speech, it was merely publishing in his newspaper a report of a suppressed meeting of the National League as is shown in the letter in which Mr. Cecil Roche announced the conviction of my hon. Friend to the Speaker. Colonel Turner, the Divisional Commissioner who chose the Magistrates to try my hon. Friend, sat on the Bench during the trial. Owing to a remark made by my hon. Friend's counsel Colonel Turner left the Court, but before Mr. Cecil Roche and the other Magistrate gave their decision they took good care to "adjourn for lunch"—in order, as I believe, that they might consult Colonel Turner. When they returned they announced that they had convicted my hon. Friend. They had convicted him of what hon. Gentlemen opposite believe to be a crime deserving of the punishment of six months' imprisonment with hard labour and yet these Magistrates offered to let the convicted criminal go without a single minute's imprisonment if he would give his word that he would not offend in like manner again. Was there ever a greater farce

    977
    than that? You call my hon. Friend a convicted criminal in one breath, and a man of honour in the next. My hon. Friend did not appeal against the sentence, and some reasons why he did not have been given to-night. I want to give the Committee another, and it is this: Mr. Cecil Roche had been persecuting humble individuals in Kerry and Clare for months previously, and had brought those counties into a very dangerous state. My hon. Friend was aware of that, and he knew that the persecution of humble people did not attract the attention in this country that it ought to. My hon. Friend was known to some extent in this country and he wanted it to go before the people of England what these Resident Magistrates were capable of doing; he wanted the people of this country to realise the character of an unmodified, unaltered, sentence of one of these Coercion Courts. From the point of view of his own personal comfort hon. Members may not applaud his wisdom, but I think they must commend his courage. And, Sir, the sentence did come before the people of this country. It came to the electors of Govan. I brought it before them myself, and as a result I was able to send a message to my hon. Friend's wife, which, I hope, gave her some little comfort. A great deal has been made of the fact that Mr. Cecil Roche was appointed a Land Commissioner by the Liberal Government. It is no part of my duty to defend the Liberal Government. Their acts in the past have very often been bad, but I understand that they have now turned over a new leaf. Mr. Cecil Roche made himself con spicuous as a Land Commissioner by the insolence with which he treated his colleague Mr. Morrison, and, later, he has been notable for the evident pleasure which it gave him to attend evictions, to lead baton charges against the people, and to inflict severe sentences. This gentleman took a holiday last year, but even during his holiday this craze for eviction—this love of eviction, and delight in torturing unfortunate peasants—accompanied him. He actually was photo graphed in a group representing an eviction scene. This man, whose duties compel him to be present at these sad scenes, during his holiday for pleasure takes part in a mock eviction. I com-
    978
    mend that to the notice of English Members. I trust the mind of the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale will dwell on this incident. I do not think the Committee will be of opinion that men of that kind are fit to have entrusted to their tender mercies the lives and liberties of the people of Kerry and Clare. It has been said that the Executive in no way interferes with the Resident Magistrates. Attention was called by the hon. Member for York to the case of Mr. Kilkelly, a Magistrate in the County of Clare. Mr. Kilkelly had the temerity, in a case under the Coercion Act, to differ from Mr. Cecil Roche, thinking that one month's imprisonment was sufficient, whereas Mr. Cecil Roche thought it should be two months'. The result was that Mr. Cecil Roche was left, in the county, and Mr. Kilkelly was removed. I think I am correct in saying that for months or years Mr. Kilkelly was not thought fit to serve in any Coercion Court in Ireland, and only recently when the lesson may be supposed to have sunk deep enough into his mind, has he again been allowed to take part in these proceedings. Then we have the case of another Resident Magistrate, Mr. Butler, who also was removed because he gave fair decisions. Mr. Kilkelly was removed to the North of Ireland, and Mr. Butler treated in a similar fashion was removed to the worst and most inconvenient district in Kerry, and has not, I think, been allowed to sit in a Coercion Court since. This is the way in which the Government intimate their wishes to these gentlemen in Ireland; this is the way the Government convey to them that if they wish to get on it is better under all circumstances that they should not display too much leniency towards the unfortunate people brought before them. Reference has been frequently made to the case of the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), and we have had a great many arguments from lawyers upon the subject. I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to put a legal view before the Committee, but I want the Committee to bear this in mind, that Chief Baron Palles has declared that under no circumstances whatever could he be induced to give bail for good behaviour. After that expression of opinion from the Judge at the head of the Judicial Bench

    979
    in Ireland, that he would refuse under similiar circumstances to give bail as Dr. Tanner refused, I ask do the Government mean to keep the hon. Member for Mid Cork in gaol? When we debated Dr. Tanner's sentence on a motion for adjournment a few days ago I thought we had too much of the legal argument whether the Magistrates had the legal right to bind Dr. Tanner or not. It appears to me the important thing to keep in view, is the fact that—whether the Magistrates acted legally or not—remains, and no one will venture to dispute it, that no Bench of Magistrates in this country would dare to rake up this musty old Statute of Edward III. in order to arrogate to themselves powers that the people of this country would not allow to be used. That this statute was deliberately dug up for the purpose is abundantly proved by the Magistrates coming to Court with a long warrant carefully drawn out, which they had not time to draw out in Court nor the legal knowledge either. The warrant was prepared for them by some one with very superior knowledge, and within a few weeks similar warrants were used in other Courts in Ireland, and there are now several persons in gaol because they refused to do what the Chief Baron on the Irish Bench has said he under similar circumstances would refuse to do, namely, to give bail for good behaviour under this musty old Statute of Edward III.
    The Committee divided.—Ayes 107; Noes 149.—(Div. List, No. 295.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.): I do not wish to oppose the Vote being taken to-night, but I think we are entitled to a more definite answer as to when we are to have the papers which were promised some four months ago, in reference to the transformation of Divisional Commissioners or Resident Magistrates into ordinary Justices of the Peace. We understood these Papers were shortly to be presented, and I hope we shall have them before the Report stage of this Vote is taken.
    MR. MADDEN: If I recollect aright, when the Motion for a Return was put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the Government said they were prepared to assent to a Motion extending over the last 10
    980
    years, but the right hon. Gentleman did not move for this Return.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the Government give us what Papers they are prepared to present?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will look into the matter, and shall be glad to give such information as can be given.
    MR. GILL: I have felt it my duty to bring very serious charges against Colonel Turner, and I beg to say that on the Report Stage I shall again bring the conduct of this gentleman under the attention of the House.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to say that the Motion I put down for Paper, was in the form in which I thought it was necessary to have the information. I think we are entitled to the whole correspondence between the Government and the Lord Chancellor, in reference to the extraordinary manœuvre by which these gentlemen were removed from the position of Resident Magistrates to Justices of the Peace appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Motion was blocked by the Government, though it is true when my patience was well-nigh worn out I did receive an intimation that the Government were willing to give the Papers in a less complete form, and I communicated to the Solicitor General for Ireland my view that, as proposed, the information would be of little use. I expected that the Government would relieve me from the responsibility of moving for Papers which I had said would be of little use, and would put down a Motion in the name of one of their officials. I trust now on reconsidering the subject the Government will give us a full and frank explanation on the subject. I will just add that I hope on the next Stage of this Vote the Chief Secretary will be prepared to offer some explanation in reference to the conduct of Colonel Turner and Mr. Walsh, whose interference in a dispute between landlord and tenants in a troubled district prevented the effectuation of a settlement when that was about to be arrived at.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: There is an item of £448 for the examination of newspapers and hire of rooms, and it appears this expenditure is on account of a kind of Press censorship. It is very distinctly marked out, and is evidently an arrangement by which officers are engaged in various centres

    981
    to which newspapers of the district are sent and examined, on a kind of press censorship. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information upon this item?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, the hire of rooms has nothing to do with a press censorship, which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman should be aware, does not exist in Ireland. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) I have to say, I shall be quite prepared to consider the allegations against Colonel Turner and Mr. Walsh. I feel sure these gentlemen have no desire to prevent settlements, and I believe the occurrence alluded to is quite capable of satisfactory explanation.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: May I ask why the hire of rooms is associated with the item for newspapers?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Rooms are not hired for newspapers. The grammar of the entry leaves something to be desired, and I will endeavour to correct the English when the Vote next comes before the House.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  PREFERENTIAL PAYMENTS IN BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 319.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL MONEY (No. 2) BILL. (No. 356.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. H. W. LAWSON: I wish to enter a protest against the underhand and even treacherous way in which, in connection with this Bill, the Government have behaved.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I rise to a point of order, Sir. I appeal to you, is it right that the hon. Gentleman should term the action of the Government "underhand and treacherous."
  MR. SPEAKER: The word "underhand" is certainly not Parliamentary.
  MR. H. W. LAWSON: I at once withdraw the word, Sir. I think the right hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstood the meaning I meant to convey, which was certainly not directed against him personally. I wish to explain to the House exactly what happened in regard to this Bill. This is not the original London County Council Money Bill. It is a supposititious Bill introduced by the Government after withdrawing the other without notice to the Council, and the difference between the two is this, that the eighth clause of the former which gave the Council power to pay any costs with respect to an inquiry into the water supply of London by the Council, has been withdrawn. It is, to say the least, open to doubt whether this Bill should be introduced at all. When the Local Government Bill was in Committee last Session we moved a clause placing London in exactly the same position as Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester, with respect to the manner in which money should be raised, but the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board insisted that the County Council should only raise money after application to Parliament. It was then understood that this Bill should be settled between the County Council and the Government. The original Bill was so settled. There were conferences between Sir Reginald Welby, representing the Treasury on the one hand—I am not bringing him into the matter ad invidiam—and Lord Rosebery, Lord Lingen, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee on the other. This clause was agreed upon, and the Bill was introduced into this House by the Government. Lord Rosebery went abroad, and, without the Council receiving any intimation, the Bill was suddenly withdrawn owing to the opposition of persons connected with the water companies, and another Bill was introduced from which the clause objected to was omitted. I think that in this matter the people of London have been hardly used. They wish—and justifiably so—to obtain more information as to the water supply which they have to put up with. It does not follow that they

  983
  will spend excessive sums to supplement inquiries which have already taken place, but they want power to make use of them which the original clause gave them. We have reason to complain that by a sort of back-stairs intrigue the clause has been spirited out of the Bill, and I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give us some satisfactory explanations on the subject. If the Treasury approved the Bill in the first place, why did they not adhere to it; why did they cut out this clause? The water supply of London is a matter of intense importance to the people; they have reason to complain of the defects, costliness, and impurity of the present system of supply, and they ought to have a right of inquiry. I shall, therefore, try to re-insert the clause on the Committee stage.
  MR. A. BAUMANN: I think the Treasury have done wisely and well in cutting out this clause. I think it would be a monstrous thing if the County Council of London had been allowed to conduct a fishing inquiry into the capital of the water companies at the expense of the ratepayers, especially as there exists on record a very complete account of an inquiry into the water companies held not many years ago, and the members of the County Council can find out all about the water supply by consulting the evidence given before Sir W. Harcourt's Committee. Now, there are two things I should like to know. How long is the practice going to be continued of a Government official rising in his place without any explanation and introducing a Bill, of the details of which he knows nothing, and without affording any opportunity for discussing it? If the House of Commons is to exercise any effective control over the expenditure of the London County Council, Bills such as this ought to be introduced by some member of the Council who could make the details of the clauses plain to the House. Under this Bill the ratepayers of London will be called upon to supply £1,760,000, and I say that before passing it we ought to have full information given us. I do not know whether on the Motion for the SECOND READING I should be in order in referring to clauses of the Bill, but there are some in respect of which
  984
  we are surely entitled to demand some explanation. Under a sub-section of Clause 5, for example, the County Council asks for £350,000, nothing being said as to the purposes for which that sum is wanted. The House is surely entitled to know what the money is wanted for. Under another sub section of the same clause the Council seek to obtain power to borrow money with the object of acquiring a site for a chamber. No sum is specified, however, and if the clause is agreed to in its present form they will be able to borrow any amount and to build themselves a "lordly pleasure house" indeed. I have heard of a sum of £3,000,000 being spent on such a purpose, and I do not believe that the ratepayers wish that so very large a sum should be spent on the construction of an Hotel de Ville for London. Again, under the Metropolitan Board of Works Act, 1881, and the Metropolitan Board of Works Bridges Act, 1884, power is given to borrow a sum of £791,000, and this Bill gives the Council power to borrow a sum of £17,000, provided that all the money borrowed and expended under these Acts does not exceed £791,000. But it seems to me that £1,100,000 has already been borrowed, and I should therefore like an explanation of these figures. Considering that the rate levied under the régime of the County Council has already reached 12d. and a fraction in the pound, I think that the representatives of the ratepayers in this House have a right to ask that the details of the Bill under consideration should be fully explained either by a Government official or by a representative of the London County Council.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I will leave to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the task of explaining to the Member for Beckham his responsibility for introducing a Bill of the details of which he knows nothing. But I think this discussion will lead the House to realise the unenviable position in which it is placed in trying to retain control over the expenditure of London. It is the result of attempting to keep London in a "go-cart." If we had been successful in our Amendment last year, we should have relieved the House of Commons of the necessity of being

  985
  parties to this Bill. London ought really to be in the same position as the large Municipalities throughout the country, and I say it is impossible for Parliament to keep control over it by means of a Bill like this. Whether the expenditure is too great or not is a question which must be left to the Council's constituents. If the Council does not fulfil its stewardship honestly the ratepayers can call it to account. We in London are suffering from the present system of water supply. We want, not to rush into any scheme for buying up the water companies, but power to thoroughly investigate the sources of supply, and to ascertain whether a cheaper supply than the present cannot be obtained. Those Members of Parliament who have objected to the presence in the Bill of a clause which would have enabled the County Council to effect their purpose in this respect are either directors of existing water companies or relatives of directors. If hon. Members look at to-day's papers they will see an account of an action between a City firm and a water company. The firm owned an enormous warehouse in which hardly any water was used, and they naturally desired to be supplied by meter. They gained their judgment in the First Court they went to, but the company appealed and got it reversed. Then the City firm took the case to the House of Lords, which sustained the decision of the Court of Appeal, and it is now settled that the people of London cannot get their water supply by meterage. They must, instead, submit to pay on assessment, no matter how small a quantity of water they may require. Is there any other commodity which the people have to pay for on the same conditions?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The water supply clause does not form part of this Bill.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: Possibly I shall have an opportunity of raising this question when my hon. Friend moves in Committee to insert the clause. I think we have good cause to complain of the manner in which we have been treated in regard to this Bill. I am told that great pressure was brought to bear on the Government to cut out this clause. I do not care whether the pressure came from this side or the other side of the
  986
  House; all I say is that we have a just demand for an inquiry into the water supply of London.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I think that the Metropolitan Members of this House, whether they sit on this side or on that, will desire to scrutinise very closely the large powers of expenditure which it is proposed to confer on the London County Council by this Bill; and, therefore, I trust that the hon. Member for Dundee, who represents the Council in this House, will give us some adequate explanation of the proposal. The hon. Member for Finsbury, who spoke last, said this was a matter for the London County Council itself to consider, and that it rested between the members of that body and their constituents. Well, but, Sir, for the next three years the constituents of the London County Council will have very little opportunity of saying anything on this point, or, indeed, upon many other points, as to which I suspect they will have a bone to pick with their present representatives in the London County Council when they come before them for re-election. The constitution of the London County Council has been fixed by this House with the very purpose of our exercising a certain amount of supervision over its powers of expenditure during the early period of its existence, and I venture to think that the London ratepayers are inclined at the present moment to be thankful that this House possesses that power of control. I hope that this House and that the ratepayers of London will observe that the fault found by the hon. Member for St. Pancras with this Bill is that it does not confer on the London County Council sufficiently wide powers of expenditure. I must say that from the somewhat cursory perusal I have been able to give to this Bill, it seems to me that the powers given are very large indeed, larger certainly than I should be inclined to agree to until we have had adequate explanations from those who officially speak for the County Council. I hope the ratepayers of London will observe that the hon. Member for St. Pancras wishes to enlarge these enormous powers and to enable the County Council to hold a fishing inquiry, and expend upon it a very considerable amount which will

  987
  come out of the pockets of the ratepayers.
  MR. LAWSON: The hon. Member is attributing motives to me which are not justified. The Treasury introduced this clause into the original Bill.
  Sir ROPER LETHBRIDGE: The hon. Member is criticising this Bill because that clause has been omitted from it, and therefore I maintain, with all deference to him, that he does desire to give increased powers of expenditure to the London County Council.
  MR. T. C. BARING: I think it is perfectly impossible at this period of the Session and this hour of the night properly to discuss a Bill of this description. I also confess myself unable to reconcile the figures in the body of the Bill with the figures at either end of it, although the discrepancy may possibly admit of some explanation. For instance, although the Bill authorises the expenditure by the Council during the year of £880,000 odd, when I come to examine the figures in Clause 6, I find they do not amount to £800,000. I hope that next year, if we are to exercise any control over the expenditure of the London County Council, the Bill will be brought forward in such a form, and at such a time, that those who desire to understand what the people of London are paying for may be able to obtain the necessary information.
  MR. R. K. CAUSTON: The hon. Member for Peckham says the Government have done wisely and well in omitting the clause providing for the payment of the expenses of a water supply inquiry. I hope I shall be in order in asking the Secretary to the Treasury to explain why the Government have omitted from the Bill the clause authorising an expenditure by the London County Council for the purposes of an inquiry into the water supply of the Metropolis. The hon. Member also said that this would be a fishing inquiry. Well, I say that, fishing or otherwise, the people of London demand that there should be an inquiry into the pressing question of the water supply. Perhaps, too, I should not be out of order in pointing out to the House as regards the omitted clause——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CAUSTON: At any rate, I think we may demand from the Secretary to the Treasury some explanation of the extraordinary conduct of the Government.
  MR. W. L. JACKSON: I think the explanation is very simple. The clause referred to has not been introduced, as stated by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, by the Treasury, though no doubt the Bill with that clause was sanctioned by the Treasury. The hon. Member for St. Pancras spoke of the underhand and treacherous way in which this Bill has been dealt with. I do not think they were proper words to apply to action which is taken in this House in the ordinary course of business.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member withdrew the words complained of.
  MR. W. L. JACKSON: I apologises Sir, for referring to them. I wish to say that I found, when the Bill was introduced, that there was very great opposition to the clause on both sides of the House, it being pointed out that this annual Bill had always been regarded simply and only as a Money Bill, conferring borrowing powers on the municipal authority for the purpose of carrying into effect works which had been previously sanctioned by Parliament, and it was pointed out that this clause gave power to spend money on purposes not already sanctioned by Parliament. Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that there was much weight in these objections, and that, having regard to the period of the Session, it would be unreasonable to ask the House to make this innovation. They, therefore, moved the discharge of the Order for the Second Reading of the first Bill and, brought in this amended Bill. The hon. Member for St. Pancras has spoken of the underhand conduct of the Treasury in this matter, and he states that this clause was withdrawn without any communication with the Chairman of the London County Council. But the hon. Member knows perfectly well that I endeavoured to communicate with the Chairman, and was only prevented doing so owing to his having gone abroad, and the hon. Member also knows that I did the next best thing,

  989
  and communicated with the Deputy Chairman.
  MR. LAWSON: Lord Rosebery went abroad after the last sitting of the Council. He could have been communicated with, before that.
  MR. JACKSON: That does not affect my point at all. The statement has been made that no communication was made, whereas the hon. Member knew I had endeavoured to make the communication: that I communicated with the Deputy Chairman as early as I could, and that I also communicated by letter with the Council.
  MR. LAWSON: I learned from the Deputy Chairman that he was not communicated with.
  MR. FIRTH: My hon. Friend is mistaken. I wrote a letter to the Financial Secretary on the matter.
  MR. LAWSON: Yes, afterwards.
  MR. JACKSON: I have now explained to the House the course I took. The hon. Member for Peckham has asked for information as to one or two points, and, first, as to a sum of £350,000 referred to in Sub-section 2 of Clause 5. Under the Local Government Act the County Council is entrusted with the power of dealing with lunatic asylums in Surrey and Middlesex, and this sum is for the purpose of carrying out certain buildings that are required. As to the apprehensions of the hon. Member respecting the power given in respect to building a Council Chamber, these are not very well founded, as no money can he actually expended until the expenditure has been previously sanctioned by Parliament. It would not be wise to put in the Bill the sum proposed to be given for the site when negotiations are in progress as to the amount to be paid. My hon. Friend also asked as to the proposal to give power to borrow £17,000, provided the total sum borrowed for certain purposes does not exceed £791,000. He suggests that that sum has already been exceeded, and that £1,100,000 has been borrowed. But, as a fact, the £17,000 will bring the amount borrowed under the Acts of 1881 and 1884 to £791,000, and I think my hon. Friend must be confusing the figures and including sums previously authorised to be borrowed. May I add that the duty of moving the Second Reading of this Bill is not one which the Secretary to the
  990
  Treasury voluntarily undertakes, but that it is a duty imposed on him by an arrangement of long standing.
  MR. F. W. ISAACSON: Will any amount be put in the Bill to show what will be paid for the site of the new Council Chamber?
  MR. JACKSON: No; I am afraid the negotiations will not be completed in time. But the agreement for purchase cannot be made without the sancton of the Treasury.
  MR. FIRTH: I should like to explain a matter on which a little discrepancy which has arisen. This deletion of the clause was made before I had any notice of it, and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras was the first to give me information about it. I told him when he called on me I had heard nothing about it, but subsequently I found on the Table of the Chairman of the Council a letter conveying the information.
  MR. JACKSON: Perhaps I ought to explain that I fell into a mistake. When I referred to the deputy Chairman I meant the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London, and not the hon. Member for Dundee.
  MR. FIRTH: The titular appellation of the hon. Baronet is Vice Chairman. I may say that the clause which has been omitted is in exactly the same language as that contained in a Bill which I proposed in 1882, in the Markets Bill, which we carried through at half-past three in the morning. I think the Secretary to the Treasury has given a sufficient explanation of the Bill; but I may add that the sum of £350,000 which is authorised to he raised is for buildings which we are bound to erect.
  MR. COCHRANE-BAILLIE: With reference to Subsection 4, Clause 5, may I ask if any steps have been taken to see if it is not possible to alter the present offices so as to make them suitable for the Council?
  MR. FIRTH: I think that no one who has been through the building which the County Council are now occupying would wish them to remain there longer than possible. A Committee has thoroughly investigated the matter. We have temporarily enlarged the building, and if the hon. Member will do us the courtesy to call, I think

  991
  he will fully agree with the steps we are taking to get new offices.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL. (No. 350.)
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [1st August], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. GEOEGE DIXON: As I understand that the Government have agreed to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Gorton Division of Lancashire, I shall not move the Motion which appears in my name.
  MR. CHANNING: The Vice President of the Council in laying this Bill before the House has placed the friends of technical education in a very difficult position. He must be well aware that a good many education reformers object to secondary education being handed over to Local Authorities instead of specially elected educational bodies. Unless some concession is made to our views the Bill will be strongly opposed.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Under the Intermediate Education Bill Parliament has given power to Parochial Authorities to levy a halfpenny rate for exactly the same purposes as are provided for in this Bill, and I therefore wish to know if the provisions of this Bill will enable them to levy an additional rate.
  THE VICE PEESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: I do not think any Local Authority will impose any double rate.
  Mr. A. J. MUNDELLA: I do not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I accept it with great regret and reluctance. After the country has been expecting a Technical Education Bill for two years, the measure now before the House is a great disappointment. The real mischief is embodied in Subsection (a) of Clause 1, which prevents the Local Authority from aiding out of local rates any technical or manual
  992
  instruction in elementary schools, an therefore by this Bill you are building a castle in the air and providing secondary technical instruction, because there is some idea that the voluntary schools stand in the way of introducing this technical instruction in elementary schools. Even agricultural instruction is excluded from elementary schools by-virtue of this Bill, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Royal Commission. What will this Bill do for London? For two years the London School Board has had before it a scheme of technical instruction which everybody wishes to see enforced, but this Bill will not allow a single boy in the London Board Schools to obtain this kind of instruction. It is true the County Council will be able, to some extent, to aid the Polytechnic, and for that reason I do not oppose the Bill, although I look upon it as a miserable compromise and as a miserable attempt to fulfil the promises of the Government. The existing system of elementary education is too booky; and it is desired to give to the boys a little manual, scientific, and technical instruction that they may take with them to higher colleges. This Bill will enable anything of the sort to be done. The Bill is one of the greatest shams ever perpetrated in the House, and I hope that it will be much altered in Committee.
  Question put, "That the Bill be read a second time."
  MR. CHANNING: I object, because no reply has been given to my remarks.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,: On a point of order, Sir, the hon. Member has already spoken on this stage. Can he now object?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the words "I object" reach my ears, it is sufficient. It is not necessary for me to know whence they proceed.
  MR. CHANNING: I object.
  Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
  It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next

SUCK DRAINAGE BILL. [PRIVATE BILL.]
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
ZULULAND—NATIVE CHIEFS.

  QUESTIONS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HERSCHELL: On behalf of my noble Friend the Earl of Aberdeen I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the evidence in the case of Dinizulu and other Zulu Chiefs recently tried by a Special Commission has been received by Her Majesty's Government?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): The evidence in the cases of Dinuzulu, Undabuko, and Tshingana, has only just reached this country. It is now in course of revision, and will be sent to the printer as soon as possible; but some time must elapse before the printing can be completed, as the evidence is very voluminous. The evidence in the cases of Somhlolo and other Zulu Chiefs has already been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. I need hardly add that when this evidence has been printed it will receive the very careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 191.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3 on Monday next.
  FACTORS BILL. (No. 122)
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to, with Amendments; and Bill, with the Amendments, returned to the Commons.
  JUDICIAL FACTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 202.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) BILL. (No. 201.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 179.)
  Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 204.)
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: With reference to what fell last night from two noble Lords who sit on the opposite side of the House, who are not present this afternoon, as to the position of the Provost of Dundee on the University Court, I may say that I have gone into the matter as I promised I would, and have come to the conclusion that I should adhere to the position which I have all along taken. It is exceedingly desirable that the University College of Dundee should be affiliated to the University of St. Andrews at the earliest possible moment, and the effect of the Provost of Dundee, the Chief Magistrate

  875
  of that town, being on the University Court of that University, would be very beneficial in leading to that result. I only make this statement because I stated last night that I would consider the matter before Report. Then, it will be remembered that the noble Lord (Lord Camperdown) moved an Amendment last night, which I also said I would consider. The noble Lord is not now present, but I am glad to be able to accept the Amendment which he proposed.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 8 page 8, line 21, to leave out the words "University Court," and insert the word "Commissioner" instead thereof. Agreed to.
  Other Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  PRINCE OF WALES'S CHILDREN BILL. (No. 212.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL, formerly CRUELTY TO CHILDREN PREVENTION BILL. (No. 160.)
Read 3a (according to order).
LORD HERSCHELL: On Clause 3 I have to move an Amendment which I mentioned yesterday, which I think will be an improvement in the licensing provision. At present that provision enables the Court to order that the child be permitted to be employed at an entertainment, or series of entertainments. I propose that instead of its being done in that form, it should be done by a license, and that that license may be granted for such time and during such hours of the day and subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Court may think fit. It does not compel the Court to impose any conditions whatever. They may give the license without any conditions. I think it advantageous that they should have power to impose conditions if they so think fit. I am led to think so by the course which has been pursued at Glasgow, which, I believe, has been extremely successful.
Amendment moved, in line 42, to leave out "order that," and insert "grant a license for such time and during such hours of the day and subject
876
to such restrictions and conditions as it may think fit for."—Agreed to.
Consequential Amendments agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL: The next Amendment I have to propose is to enable an Inspector under the Factory and Workshop Act to deal with these licenses in the way in which he deals with cases under that Act. In cases under the Factory Act the Inspector has power to see that the license is complied with and that the conditions are fulfilled, and I propose that the Secretary of State may assign to any Inspector appointed under the Factory Act the duty of seeing that the conditions of licenses under this Bill are complied with, and may also give the Inspector power to inspect premises and so forth.
Amendment moved, at end of Clause 3, to add—
"A Secretary of State may assign to any Inspector appointed, or to be appointed under Section 67 of the Factory and Workshops Act, 1878, specially and in addition to any other usual duties, the duty of seeing whether the restrictions and conditions of any license under the last preceding section are duly complied with, and any such Inspector shall have the sums power to enter, inspect, and examine any place of public entertainment at which the employment of a child under the provisions of such clause is licensed for the time being, as an Inspector has to enter, inspect, and examine a factory or workshop under Section 68 of the same Act."—(The Lord Herschell.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): I may mention that this Amendment entirely carries out the views of the Grand Committee which sat upon this Bill, and also the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Education which wore especially directed to this point.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL: Under the Elementary Education Act of 1876, and the Education (Scotland) Act of 1878, a child under 10 is not allowed to be employed except under certain conditions and restrictions. It might possibly be open to contention that a license under this Act exempted from the necessity of complying with those conditions as well as fulfilling the conditions of this particular enactment. Of course that is not intended, and in order to avoid any such point I have put on the Paper this Amendment.
Amendment moved, after the foregoing Amendment, to add the words—
"Nothing in this section contained shall affect the provisions of the Education (England) Act, 1876, or the Education (Scotland) Act, 1878."—(The Lord Herschell.)
Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL: My next Amendment I move in fulfilment of the promise that I gave when this Proviso as to the employment of children under 10 was considered in Committee—namely, that a short time should be allowed before that part of the Act came into operation.
Amendment moved, after the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words—
"So much of Sub-section (c) of this section as makes it an offence to cause or procure a child to be in premises licensed according to law for public entertainment, or in any circus or other place of public amusement for the purpose of singing, playing, or performing for profit, shall not come into operation until the 1st day of November, 1889."—(The Lord Herschell.)
Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons, to be printed as amended (No. 223.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, to Monday next, Three o'clock.